1995.03.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:58 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Here is an idea I threw out about a year ago, but got no response to.  Lets
assume that the "Mills" shrunken atom can exist and be generated (an assumption
I am not convinced of yet).  Now, would we expect this atom to act the same way
in a martix of heavy (compared to H) metal atoms as a normal atom would?  What
if the atom is capable of moving inside of the electron cloud of a metal atom
due to it's small size (like a neutron can)?  It is neutral so there would be
no electrostatic repulsion, until the shrunken electron orbit of the
hydrogen/deuterium electron circles the metal nucleus, at which time the nuclei
would "see each other" and repeal.  But at this point the nuclei would
presumably be in very very close proximity with each other.  Perhaps close
enough for a tunneling effect to take place in a reasonable length of time. If
this were to happen then we would have a fusion reaction, but not an h/h or
d/d, but rather a h/pt or d/pd.
 
IE. a deuterium and a PD106 (27% abundance) would then produce a Cd108 which is
also stable, and produces no helium, neutrons or other tell tale particles.
Energy released would be 13136+89260-89910Kev or about 12.5 Mev.  I would
expect this much energy to be released via a gamma, so this could be a dead
end.  On the other hand, what if the excited atom emits an alpha instead of a
gamma. In that case there would be the the same excess energy as that of a
D+D=He4 reaction, and helium would be the ash.  It would appear that there was
a D+D fusion with the appropriate excess energy released, and helium ash, but
no tale tell gammas.  The Pd would end up back as PD106, meaning that it would
simply be a nuclear catalyst, taking place in the reaction, but returning to
it's original form.
 
Another possibility would be if the electron(s) become involved in the fusion.
As you pointed out, the electron could not fuse with the hydrogen atom because
that would require an input of energy.  However when combined with the energy
released by a fusion, it would become possible.  Ie. with Pd106 fusion with a
deuterium and capturing one electron the result would be Ag107 (stable) with an
energy release of 13136+88407-89910 or 11.6 Mev.  Or if both electrons were
captured the result would be Pd108 (which is also stable) and a release of
13136+89522-89910 or 12.7 Mev.  The same arguments would as to how the energy
 could be released as in the above paragraph.
 
Of course for such a reaction to take place would require some unlikely things
to happen, such as the Mills atom (if it exists) moving inside of the metal
atom, and the loss of over 10Mev of energy from an atom with an atomic weight
over 100 without any gammas.  But it does make interesting speculation.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Solar -VRS- Fusion: fragile arid environments
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar -VRS- Fusion: fragile arid environments
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 14:22:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In the Solar -VRS- Fusion debate the subject of harvesting biomass from
arid desert areas has come up. This is getting off the subject, but I would
to put in a plug for some environmentalist and nature preservation issues
about which I feel strongly. People should take note of these issues! People
inadvertantly contribute to the destruction of the U.S. Southwest when they
grill hamburgers, as explained below.
 
The chlorophyll in a desert plant works as well as it does in any other C[3]
plant, but for a number of reasons you cannot harvest as much biomass in arid
country as you get in rainy places. That's 'cause the dessert it barren.
That's why it is so empty looking. No plants, y'know. See any cowboy movie.
Seriously, some of the reasons are worth enumerating:
 
These plants do not lack sunshine, so they do not need much foliage. They are
not very green.
 
They grow far apart, spreading their seeds by amazing methods. Plants which
grow in hot, sunny rain forests often have lots of green foliage. That is
because they grow right next to other plants, so they must compete for
sunlight. Desert plants compete for water, not light. They have more light
than they can use.
 
They are slow growing. Some African desert plants grow for hundreds of years,
yet they remain the size of a houseplant.
 
Their growing season is short. They spurt up after a rain and they remain
quiescent during hot seasons.
 
They require deep taproots, so a lot of the growth is underground. It would
take a terrific amount of energy to dig up and harvest these roots for biomass
fuel, and it would destroy the environment.
 
 
Digging up ("harvesting") desert plants is a horrible idea that has devastated
fragile environments. In the U.S. Southwest, people have been cutting mesquite
wood for barbeque cooking, and they have been digging up slow growing cacti
species for decoration or fun or Lord-know-what vandalism. These plants grow
slowly, it takes decades to reestablish them. They are the only local plant
life so they are critical to many endangered desert animals. Chopping up such
plants just to make nice smelling smoke in your barbeque is a grotesque and
infamous thing to do. I urge readers to avoid these mesquite grilled foods.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:08 -0500 (EST)

gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Sorry, but I consider funding an encumberment that also leaves me open to
accusations of bias.  I am open to the loan of any equiptment that we could use
to analyze the Griggs device however.
 
I agree that if a small device could be built or procured for $700, that would
be an excellent way to go.  However, having not contributed to the funding in
the first place I really don't guess I should have a voice in how it is spent.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:11 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> "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."
 
Yes, I was a-maized to find that on my trip to England in 92. :)
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Qestions #1
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:04 -0500 (EST)

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
 
-> On the other hand, what if the excited atom emits an alpha instead of
-> gamma. In that case there would be the the same excess energy as that of a
-> D+D=He4 reaction, and helium would be the ash.  It would appear that there w
-> a D+D fusion with the appropriate excess energy released, and helium ash, bu
-> no tale tell gammas.  The Pd would end up back as PD106, meaning that it wou
-> simply be a nuclear catalyst, taking place in the reaction, but returning to
-> it's original form.
 
Opps.  That would require capturing 2 Deuterium atoms, not one.  I wish this
reader had the ability to let me review what I write later, instead of sending
it immediately.  For the capture of only one deuturium the final result would
be a He4 and Rh105, which has a rather short half life.  This means that the
PD would not be a catalyst after all.
 
If we start with PD105 (22.2% abundance) instead of Pd106 we would end up with
Rh104 which is stable. Sorry about the error. Unfortunately I tend to get
myself confused when going through the tables, although I do know better.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Characterizing Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Characterizing Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:14 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
I tend to agree.  Such a definition is much too broad.  It would include not
only P/F devices, but Grigggs, fission, hot fusion, ZPE and the gravitational
collapse of stars.  Obviously most of these have nothing to do with fusion.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 15 Mar 1995 19:47:55 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <EjNP=Xi0hY_k9jeV59@andrew.cmu.edu> Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andre
.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>>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.
>

I am afraid that it is you that need to be corrected. Corn -is- a grass. "Grain"
means nothing in plant taxonomy.

>>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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The day i see a reasonable post by that Rothwell fellow will be special indeed.
As for the 2% percent efficiency, that's what i have also heard about corn.

>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 !

  Silage is not as easily exploitable as the cernels. Economics, rather than
energy balance is what counts here. Dry silage would make a dandy biomass fuel,
but you'll never get oil/protein/starch out of it. All contain lots of energy
however.

>
>-Phil Andrews
>
>

Frank Ieromnimon,
ierof@essex.ac.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / John White /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 15 Mar 1995 15:59:59 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> ... You got heat? Does it go on a thousand times longer
> than any chemical source would allow? That's it! You have a CF reaction.
> What could be simpler?
 
Wonderful! I notice, however, that no results reported so far come anywhere
close to your high standard of proof. Chemistry can easily explain
4MJ per liter of electrolyte (from the decomposition of Peroxide)
and no result comes anywhere near to a thousand times that.

In fact, I am not aware of any burst that is clearly above calorimetry
error and which exceeds 4MJ/l. Pons' boiling cells need only about half
that. Pons had such bursts shortly after his original announcement, but
after another 5 years and tons of funding he still has no burst over 4MJ/l.
It looks to me like he's up against some sort of hard physical limit.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:30:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3k7fh5$4gc@firewall.ihs.com>,
Alastair Mayer <alastair@firewall.ihs.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <blackice-1003952141360001@line0f.kemp-du.pavilion.co.uk>,
>: Mark Bennett - editor <blackice@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: >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.
>
>:      Then Joe will soon be very very wealthy noting the current margins,
>:      especially if he graduates from 'laboratory equipment' to 
>:      industrial equipment.  Heck, at $3.00 an ounce, you don't even have
>:      to be very good at manufacturing to make lots and lots of money.
>:      And his success at keeping this 'information' from the world
>:      futures markets is nothing less than phenomenal.
>
>:      So, please call us again dear when he reaches a billion in 
>:      net worth.  Until then....
>
>:      ... this is all horse poo poo.
>
>:                                   dale bass
>
>At his current production rate and metal prices, he's netting somewhere
>in the neighborhood of $2000/day.  (Nice neighborhood!)  At that rate
>it'll take him nearly 1400 years to hit a billion dollars.
>
>Don't hold your breath, Dale.

     I've never met anyone with a 100/1 margin that didn't ramp up production
     very quickly to meet demand, even ignoring potential economies of scale.

                                dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Matt Austern /  Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell is an expert on Tokamaks?  NOT
Date: 15 Mar 1995 06:21:26 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3k33ku$iuk@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> 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.

Hm, that might not be a bad idea...
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:06:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3k5i4f$9sr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Jollie MM <jolliemm@aol.com> wrote:
>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...

     Depends on what the horse has been eating. 

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Harry Conover /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 15 Mar 1995 17:46:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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.

S'pose you don't recognize this, Jed, but you've just formalized a major 
distinction between CF (notably P&F and their ilk) and science. Of course,
few today would equate CF work with science anyway!  

: CalTech, MIT and Harwell saw the effect, so anyone who does the
: experiment right will see it.

Yup.  Sure they did!  That's why today they have entire labs working on 
this stuff full time, right?   :-)


                                      Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / John Cobb /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 15 Mar 1995 09:55:11 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <tomkD5Gpxy.BrE@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>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?

I repeat my challenge. Put-up or shut-up. Show me where I ever claimed
fusion is "just another 10 years". You can't, because I never did. It is
easy to write tripe with a broad brush. But backing it up with facts comes
with much more effort.

>Ahh, I wrote 'neutron' when I meant 'nutrino'. 

Oh, so you meant neutrino did you. Well, surprise, neutrinos have nothing
to do with fusion power. Neutrinos interact with nuclei via the weak
interaction. While this is important in describing the fusion paths used
in the sun, specifically the production of deuterium from protons, it has
no role in the DT (or even D-3He) fuel cycle used in power plants. 
Let me suggest looking at Chapters 1 and 2 of Galsstone's and Lovberg's
book, <Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions>. It was published by Krieger in 1975
and is probably out of print, but you should be able to find it at a
local library. Let me suggest that you take a little time to do some reading
before posting again because, well, honestly, you are really embarassing 
yourself in public. I don't mean to be overly critical, but I'm just not sure 
you are aware of it.

>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?

No, read my post again. I said there was a solar neutrino problem that is
of intense interst, but that it was on the order of a factor of two and
not "orders of magnitude" as you had stated, well actually you stated that
it was a solar neutron problem, but that discussion is above.

>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.

Actually, I think that it is more a consequence of people who don't
really understand the issues or the science. It seems that it is
common to then try to reduce everything to human behavior. Some people 
don't understand why it is such a hard problem or  how so much progress
can have been made and yet the goal is still 30 years away. So when they
don't understand, they begin to look for conspiracies and fraud. It is
not that there is anything there, but it is just psychologically more
comforting to have a simple, understandable explanation, even if it is
wrong.

Actually, let me let you in on a secret. It's the aliens fault. We would
have succeeded already if they had not been using their intense N-ray
devices to systematically sabotage every single shot at every single
fusion experiment worldwide. :>


>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?

Now this is actually a good question. Many people argued that we could learn
a great deal from just doing D-D shots. In fact most fusion experiments
were done w/ DD shots. However, the argument in favor of using DT as a fuel
is that it is the easiest to burn. That is why most fusion researchers have
assumed it would be the fuel of choice. However, as I have said here and
elsewhere, I believe a very good case can be made for using some advanced
fuel cycle such as D-3He which would have much less radioactivity.

However, if we conceed the point that DT is the fuel of choice as the
majority view holds today, then the reason to use Tritium in TFTR and JET
is that it will allow us to build confidence in the extrapolations that
have been assumed from DD shots. Early results on TFTR show that to be
the case (actual results actaully seem to be a little better than the
extrapolated estimates). Eventhough there was a great deal of confidence
in the extrapolations beforehand, it is important to check it out, 
especially before going to the next step.

I find it very ironic that today I am trying to explain why introducing
tritium into current experiments because someone has accused fusioneers
of subterfuge and intrigue in cheating the U.S. taxpayer out of a passle
of bucks for their "fraud". Less than 18 months ago similar people were 
crying fowl because the same experiments were not using tritium and never
would. I guess to you-guys, the fusion program is damned if it does and
damned if it doesn't. You seem to have already made up your minds on
your conclusions and are only searching sophistically for an argument
du jour to try to support your preconceived conclusion.

>
>Could it have been a simple propaganda move? No! Princeton would never
>stoop to publicity to obtain federal funds would it?
>
No, I told you already, it is the aliens from outer-space that 
are doing it. Hey Tom let me see behind your ear, you don't have a 
small blue triangle do you --- omigod! :>


-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 15 Mar 1995 17:05:18 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Rs9amu+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> 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.
>  

I have for some time been puzzled by Jed's assertion that the energy is too
great to be accounted for by chemistry.  His argument about rocket fuels
was fairly compelling, assuming he was comparing the energy per atom of
_fuel_.  Here, however, Jed seems to be talking about energy per atom of
_catalyst_.  This makes no sense to me; a catalyst merely facilitates a
chemical reaction.  It does not change the product species or the amount of
energy liberated or consumed.

[balance deleted]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusi
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research moderated, sci.physics.fusi
Date: 15 Mar 1995 17:09:28 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

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

[_magna_cum_deletia_]

> 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, the palladium is a _catalyst_!  The central question is whether it be
a catalyst for a fusion event (CF hypothesis) or a purely chemical event
(null hypothesis).  An energy balance using the quantity of catalyst as a
basis is an empty argument.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / PAULO CUNHA /  Neutrino?
     
Originally-From: l41263@alfa.ist.utl.pt (PAULO JORGE BARBOSA PEREIRA DA CUNHA)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrino?
Date: 15 Mar 1995 18:10:42 -0000
Organization: Instituto Superior Tecnico

I wonder if anyone can tell me what type of information does the neutrino
carry? I've heard they don't have mass or electric charge, and I'd like to
know how does it interact, how do we know it exists.

                                            Paulo Cunha

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenl41263 cudfnPAULO cudlnCUNHA cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Richard Schultz /  Spot the math error!
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spot the math error!
Date: 15 Mar 1995 18:02:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Rs9amu+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>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. 

(50.4 x 10^6 J/mol)/(6.022 x 10^23 atoms/mol) = 8.369 x 10^(-17) J/atom
(8.369 x 10^(-17) J/atom)/(1.602189 x 10^(-19) J/eV) = 522 eV/atom

Okay, I've found one order of magnitude math error already.  Two more,
and we'll be back in chemical energies.  Not that the number of Palladium
atoms present has ever bveen shown to be of any relevance.

>He has failed to catch his own gross error.

From your mouth to God's ears.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 15 Mar 1995 15:14:05 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
| 
|>The lack of any agreement amongst the pro-cold-fusion experimental 
|>community on a particular experimental protocol that characterizes 
|>the phenomenon is the biggest single problem.  The phenomenon has 
|>a name but not a definition. 

In article <xUxZWQm.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>That is incorrect. I suggest you read:
> 
>E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," (coming soon in)
>Fusion Technology

and later writes

>The problem for you skeptics is that it is *too* simple, 

Sorry, Jed, but back when I accepted the data at face value and 
proceeded to work on explanations for it, I was far from a skeptic. 
If it was that simple, CF would be where superconductors are today. 
It was not, and it wallows now as it has for years. 

>                                                         too recognizable,
>and quite impossible to deny. That is why none of you ever dares to talk
>about McKubre, Storms, Celani, Arata or Oriani for that matter.   ...  

But I was doing just that in the part of my post you cut out.  When
the Storms article appears, we shall see if he describes a single 
experiment -- and if it is identical to the setup used by the other 
four in your list.  According to the summary I was quoting in my 
comments, that is impossible because these different people (including 
some groups you omitted here but were cited there) use different starting 
conditions and do not even measure the same things! 

More importantly, perhaps you did not notice the irony that you have to 
quote a not-yet-published artice by someone other than Pons or Fleischmann 
to define the Pons-Fleischmann experiment circa the 6th anniversary of 
the press conference.  That alone proves my thesis. 

Your definition 

>   ...   In any case, I have charactorized the phonomenon countless
>times in a succinct definition that works very well and that can be
>checked easily: CF is heat beyond chemistry. 

is just a fancier way of giving a name to an ill-defined collection of 
probably unrelated data.  It does not define the canonical experiment 
that everyone could settle on as the focus of experimental and theoretical 
efforts.  Is it electrochemistry or mechanical in origin?  Should I use 
a plasma discharge or sound?  Should we look for helium or tritium, or 
do we get heat without any byproducts at all?  Get specific or get lost. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / John White /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Subject: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 15 Mar 1995 16:02:05 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Subject: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
> So I take Oriani seriously. But he can still be wrong.  ...
> ...  It is probably just chemistry, but interesting."
 
jedrothwell@delphi.com replies:
> 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."

That's nothing! Chemistry can store *far* more than 5,200 eV/atom of Pd.
Just fill a swimming pool with Deuterium Peroxide, add one atom of Pd,
and you are storing 2,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000eV/atom of Pd.

> This is a 200 kJ reaction without a hint of any chemical change in the cell.

Deuterium Peroxide stores about 4MJ/l, so it would take 50ml to store 200kJ.
The amount could be much less, however, if there are also calorimetry errors
involved.

And decomposing Peroxide gives no hint of any chemical change in the cell.
Deuterium Peroxide looks and smells like water both before and after
decomposing, and no CNF researcher ever tests for it.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Tom Droege /  Griggs has Called
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs has Called
Date: 15 Mar 1995 21:09:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Jim Griggs has returned my call.  He does want to make a few 
comments.  He has promised to get them here by the latest 
Friday morning.  So I should get the report out Friday 
evening.  I am itching to give some recommendations to 
Marshall Dudley.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Date: 15 Mar 1995 12:35:01 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <blackice-1003952141360001@line0f.kemp-du.pavilion.co.uk>,
: Mark Bennett - editor <blackice@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:

: >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.

:      Then Joe will soon be very very wealthy noting the current margins,
:      especially if he graduates from 'laboratory equipment' to 
:      industrial equipment.  Heck, at $3.00 an ounce, you don't even have
:      to be very good at manufacturing to make lots and lots of money.
:      And his success at keeping this 'information' from the world
:      futures markets is nothing less than phenomenal.

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

:      ... this is all horse poo poo.

:                                   dale bass

At his current production rate and metal prices, he's netting somewhere
in the neighborhood of $2000/day.  (Nice neighborhood!)  At that rate
it'll take him nearly 1400 years to hit a billion dollars.

Don't hold your breath, Dale.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: The Expense Report
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Expense Report
Date: 15 Mar 1995 12:40:56 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

Edwin Strojny (estro@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us) wrote:
: Tom Droege alluded to the message of the Oracle at Delphi.

: Is this message "the purpose of war is not to annihilate the enemy but 
: get him to mend his ways"?

: Ed Strojny

The Delphic Oracle was notorious for its ambiguous answers, as I
recall.  Perhaps that means that Tom's conclusion is, uh, inconclusive?

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 15 Mar 1995 23:09:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <h8z5O2m.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

That was a nice report on Biomass---sounds grim (even grimmer
when you worry about realeasing all the carbon stored
in the biomass).

> It would
> economic lunacy, but not quite as bad as the widespread use of biomass, and
> nowhere near as crazy as hot fusion.
>  
> - Jed

Ah, now back to the familiar diatribe. I can't wait for the day when you are
forced to conclude that CF does not produce any energy. 

(And if it does---well I'd be overjoyed too, so its no big loss :-)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / John Nix /  Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
     
Originally-From: GGRV13A@prodigy.com (John Nix jr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [SF] Can Sonoluminescence Cause Micro-Thermonuclear Fusion?
Date: 16 Mar 1995 02:26:05 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

jurich@almaden.ibm.com (Mark Jurich) wrote:
 ...

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

Thank you for the summary, and I am sorry I missed the presentation.  I 
am having a hard time understanding this 5 eV shock wave.  I haven't 
looked at shock wave energies before, but it seems to me that a lot more 
energy is involved than 5 eV.

As I understand the Scientific American article, each light pulse 
consists of several photons (>10).  These photons must have at least 3-4 
eV to be visible.  How can the energy emitted in light (at least 30 eV) 
be greater than the peak shock energy that William Moss describes?  As 
you noted, there are also many other mechanisms to lose energy, and I 
would suspect that visble photons are only a very small portion of the 
total energy released by the shock wave.

Is there some time/volume factor that I am missing, that allows this 5 eV 
to build up over time (50 microseconds or so) and be released in a >> 5 
eV "flash".  


John Nix

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenGGRV13A cudfnJohn cudlnNix cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Sitting on my Hands
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sitting on my Hands
Date: 16 Mar 1995 01:24:04 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3k5akc$129@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
>  Now that I have written it I want to start discussion.  Sigh! 

Well, you can't discuss the content, but maybe you could tell us 
some peripherals---like did the media ever actually cover
the even in any way? New Scientist?





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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 16 Mar 1995 05:28:10 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <he+5+mk.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> 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.
>  

This remind me of the old joke about the difference between 
an experimentalist and a theorist:

The theorist believes himself, 
but no one else believes him

The experimenter doesn't believ himself, 
but everyone else believes him.


The point being that CF experiments are evidently very tricky
affairs---thus one must be careful about giving to much weight 
to the extraordinary results until the experiments are widely
reproducible and better diagnosed.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / A Spudmaster /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: eximer@netcom.com (Asmodeus Spudmaster)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 02:31:57 GMT
Organization: HWTW:://Heap_in.With.The.World:Tired of the Soup du Jour?


Greetings,

Perhaps this is my moment to speak about my findings/research into the cold 
fusion phenomena. Further comment is greatly encouraged, but beyond theorizing 
whether or not it is possible, it would behoove us to come up with criteria 
for the phenomena's evaluation both from a technical and business/enterprise 
aspect.

Since D20 currently markets for $1000/l, I'll share with you some of my 
findings.

Known facts:
	1) LiOD/LiOH as well as any caustic alkali readily absorbs CO2 from
	   the atmosphere to form an aqueous carbonate. This fact is known by
	   all deep-sea divers who use breathing apparatus to scrub the       
           exhaled breath.
        2) An aqueous alkali carbonate under the proper conditions can undergo
           an endothermic reaction (ie, electrolysis) in which the carbonium
	   ion can bond with a free hydronium ion yeilding:
		formic acid:  HCOOH
		free oxygen:  O2
		free hydrogen:H2
		caustic alkali

		(Exercise for the students:
			What are the equilibrium constants involved here?
			What are the molar heats involved)
	3) Formic acid (or any acid for that fact) when diluted in water
	   produces an exothermic reaction as the ions dissocate into the 
	   solution (technically, the heat of dilution).

Conclusion from my experiments/analysis: (Gratis)
	a) No neutron or other daughter particle yields beyond what
	   could be expected from nominal background radiation.
	b) Electrode becomes progressively pock-marked with extended use.
	   Essentially, the electrode developes more surface area, hense
	   it becoming a better electrode by contacting more solution, until
	   breakdown occurs due to structural defect.
	c) PH shifts from alkali tending to less alkali
	d) No drastic shift of H2 to O production during electrolysis.

Conclusions:
The fact that radiation was not detected was not so much a disappointment as 
far as a viable cell is intended to produce heat, not radiation. The 
structural degradation of electrode tends to make me believe that various 
lattice-chambers could form in which fact#2(above) might be determining 
factor. Within these pockets, formic acid could easily form. On further 
degradation of the electrode, these chambers of relative high concentration of 
formic acid, are released into the general solution producing the previously 
mentioned exothermic reaction. The observation of PH shift tends to confirm 
that their is some chemical action going on here, which is confirmed by the 
relative proportion of H2->O coming off the cell.

(This was actually going to be a submission to Nature/Journal Am. Chem Soc,
 but what the hey!)...

Not to throw a towel on the discussion.
Serious replies encouraged!


[ SUBURBAN MAIL-BOTS ARE MONITORING REALITY ]

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneximer cudfnAsmodeus cudlnSpudmaster cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  EricPBliss /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 16 Mar 1995 00:53:09 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Carl...
I'd love more explanation as I am rather ignorant is this area...
I continue to ask information from my department, but I am always met with
the same respone:  that cold fusion is a hoax.  I still believe that it is
all a matter of semantics...cold fusion really has nothing to do with
fusion as we knew it 10 years ago...cold fusion is something new that
should be callled something else...I don't know what, but certainly not
fusion.  The fact is, I cant find anyone that will support cold fusion,
nor deny it.  I keep coming across the same respones:  that result were
found and refuted...that for every case found supporting it that there is
more than one case denying it.  One of my colleagues that works with
neutron activation even analyzed a sample out her at Oakridge National
Laboratory:  it was one of the only cases involving massive energy where
the vessel blew up...they checked out the stainless steel vessel for
products of fusion and found absolutely 0, that is zero!  As I said
before, I don't deny that something is going on in "cold fusion," I just
believe that whatever the processes are, they should be given a new name.

I'm sorry for mis-interpreting the physics point of view of fusion of
subatomic particles, but if these subatomic particles (which I do know of
from nuclear chemistry) are only catalysts for what we call real fusion,
I'm pretty sure that is not proven to the scientific community...I realize
I'm going out on a ledge saying that as a chemist to those physicists, but
my community doesn't accept it yet like we do quantum mechanics (ie,
relativity and other principles), so I'm still careful as to believe
everything I read.  I hope the search continues, however, as I'd love to
learn more.  Keep on posting, as I readily admit to being somewhat
deficient in this area, while also reserving the fact that I may know a
few things still, since I'm close to this subject.



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

My thoughts are not necessaryily shared by the institution which I have
the privelege to attend.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenericpbliss cudlnEricPBliss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / C Currie /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ccurrie@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Christopher Currie)
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: 16 Mar 1995 06:30:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


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

    There's a contradiction here, i.e., I find it interesting that 
irreconcilable contradictions can be resolved.  I think what you mean is
that certain experimental findings can only be incorporated in the BB 
theory by proposing extra assumptions.  It's not clear at all that dark
matter is "fantasy"--if the assumptions are testable, they're "good"
assumptions.  You can ask no more of a theory builder than this.  It sounds
like the author is rebelling against the very day-to-day activities of
scientists and researchers; Dude--it's no different in any other field:
no theory accounts for all the data.  If it did, researchers would be out
of a job and we'd know all there is to know.

 - Cheers,
     Christopher Currie
 

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenccurrie cudfnChristopher cudlnCurrie cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:08:49 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Bruce Hamilton wrote:

> 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.
> 
[...]
>              Bruce Hamilton

It would be quite a pain in the bum to try to return the correct fraction of
the contributions to all contributors; and Tom does not, to my knowledge,
have plans for further CNF experiments. I suggest that Tom, whom I think all
of us contributors trust, surprise his favourite charity by giving them the
remaining money. "Charity" means any cause needing public support that Tom
finds worthy of support.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:18:48 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, mitchell swartz wrote:

>
[...] 
> 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)

Ah, Mitch, without getting into a TB vs Skeptic fracas, I would remind you
that the literature is not "vast" for a subject that would have tremendous
repercussions if there were anything to it. I have pointed out previously that
HTSC, which by now is more or less contemporary with "cold fusion" has seen,
I believe, something like 7000 papers. As I have also pointed out, my
publication (or better: submission) statistics indicate that the CNF field is
dying an approximately exponential death; the decay started after only a few
months of dramatic rise and has continued unabated. I wish I had the
corresponding stats for HTSC, but I am willing to bet that the initial
dramatic rise was followed by a less dramatic rise, not a decay, and may well
be still rising. I am talking submissions per month. I admit I am only
guessing, not having the figures; but I was told about those approx. 7000
papers in toto.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion -VS- WOOPS! NREL: 1.5%
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion -VS- WOOPS! NREL: 1.5%
Date: 15 Mar 95 13:50:06 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <xG8Yugq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Whoops! I was reading this Exhibit A.5 wrong. NREL does *not* say efficiency
> is 0.015%. They show 241 units of solar energy converts to 3.6 units of
> biomass. Then it says "photosynthesis 0.015" but that is the conversion factor
> not the percent. So it is 1.5%.
>  
> Ha! Sorry about that, Steve. You were right. Sort of. Except, as I pointed out
> in the extended excerpt from Hall et al., by the time you factor in bugs,
> winter, fertilizer and many other things, real efficiency is a fraction of one
> percent, and if you talking about electricity (as opposed to space heating)
> then biomass is 40 to 120 times less efficient than photovoltaics.
>  
> - Jed

Apology accepted.  Finally it is Gordon Aubrecht (and others) who are right,
of course.  

Jed, suggest you are wrong by more than two orders of magnitude in your claims
that cold fusion is far better than hot fusion or fission or solar energy.
Our experiments here say that there is vanishingly little chance for 
P&F-style cold fusion to lead to any useful power production.

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
Date: 15 Mar 95 14:36:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I cannot let this one pass by without comment:

In article <harrD5ExC4.HzK@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
> 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
> 

The claims of burst-neutron emission in this paper were *retracted* in:
S.E. Jones (that's me) et al., "Search for Neutron, Gamma and X-ray Emissions
from Pd/LiOD Electrolytic Cells:  A Null Result,"
Trans. Fusion Tech. 26 (1994) 143.

As described in that paper, the earlier neutron 'bursts' were indeed traced to
systematic error:  high-voltage breakdown in the 'canned' portion of the
electronics for the Los-Alamos-style neutron detectors.  The HV supplies the
proportional-counter tubes which are filled with helium-3.  By segmenting the
detector into four independent quadrants AND digitizing all signals AND adding
a plastic-scintillator core (as described in the paper), we were able to show
that apparent neutron bursts (which would have been so
interpreted with the simpler detectors in Los Alamos) were in fact spurious.

I hope I have made this perfectly clear.

Suggestion:  let's offer the $700 remaining from Tom's trip as a reward for
anyone who can produce 700 neutrons (in a day) in the state-of-the-art neutron
detector, deep underground in Provo Canyon.

I can't do it, I admit freely.  
McKubre can't do it (he reportedly found no neutron signal
in his latest efforts.  Understand his EPRI funding is now being cut off.)
Tom Claytor can't do it (he came to Provo Canyon and tried).  A Russian team
came here last summer with sodium tungtenstate crystals (proton conductors),
claiming 100% reproducibility for neutron production -- but no neutrons were
seen above a very small background (0.7 neutron-like signals/ *hour*).
Will can't do it.  Miles can't do it.  I dare say P&F can't do it, either.  Let
them come and try, free of charge. 

Now we can demonstrate with a weak Pu source that we have that the detector is
working fine, for both burst and single neutron events.  The efficiency for
neutron detection is about 15%, folding in the requirement for neutron detection
in the plastic scintillator with delayed coincidence in the 3He portion of the
detector.  So we can detect low-level neutron signals as well or better than
anyone.  (We also use active cosmic-ray veto counters surrounding the
detector.)

A reward of $700 (a local company has told me they will add $1000 to that)
for the first 700 neutrons from cold fusion, in these sensitive detectors,
will serve to emphasize that claims of cold fusion remain unproven.  
This could also be advertised at ICCF-5.

--Steven Jones


Note:  I am not including muon-catalyzed fusion, of course -- any claim
that mu-c-f is the basis of P&F-style cold fusion is nonsense, as I have
explained based on experimental data, in some detail, in the past.
( Kawasaki please take note.)  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / I Johnston /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:24:00 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:


: Ah, Mitch, without getting into a TB vs Skeptic fracas, I would remind you
: that the literature is not "vast" for a subject that would have tremendous
: repercussions if there were anything to it. I have pointed out previously that
: HTSC, which by now is more or less contemporary with "cold fusion" has seen,
: I believe, something like 7000 papers. As I have also pointed out, my
: publication (or better: submission) statistics indicate that the CNF field is
: dying an approximately exponential death; the decay started after only a few
: months of dramatic rise and has continued unabated. I wish I had the
: corresponding stats for HTSC, but I am willing to bet that the initial
: dramatic rise was followed by a less dramatic rise, not a decay, and may well
: be still rising. I am talking submissions per month. I admit I am only
: guessing, not having the figures; but I was told about those approx. 7000
: papers in toto.

I get the High Tc update electronic listing of High Tc paper as they
come out. I have to confess I don't read it in great detail, because it
is peripheral to my main interests in SC, but 10+ papers/week seems
about right. Good, solid papers. Papers in which authors say what they
did and don't hide behind rhetoric and commercial sensibilities - though
it's a highly commercial area. Quite a contrast.

Oh yes, and High Tc happens while people are watching, with the lights
on, repeatedly.

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Robert Heeter /  More on Hot Fusion Progress (Was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Hot Fusion Progress (Was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:06:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I have a few thoughts to inject into the Cobb-Kunich debate.

In article <tomkD5Gpxy.BrE@netcom.com> Thomas H. Kunich, tomk@netcom.com
writes:
> In article <3k21et$vcb@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
> John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

Actually fusion research is less costly now than it was 10 or 15 years
ago.  The fusion budget has been essentially *flat* since 1985 or so.
So it's not getting "progressively more and more expensive."
Similarly, as I point out in my other article on this topic, the rate
of progress in both fusion power output and the triple product
(density * temperature * confinement time) which measures plasma
performance has been exponential over the past 40 years or so.
This growth shows no signs of letting up, as recent TFTR results
(improvements in *both* triple product and fusion power) show.
So we're getting essentially the same amount of new scientific 
information (if one correlates a fixed rate of scientific information
growth with exponential growth in the performance yardsticks),
and we're doing it on a budget that is essentially flat.  Your claim
above is without merit.

The drain on the treasury comes from income transfers from the
young to the old, in the form of (a) social security, (b) medicare, 
and (c) deficit spending.  Energy research is one of the few things 
anyone is doing which is likely to yield real future benefit.
Stick your budget axe where it will really do some good!

> 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.

25 years of tokamak research has brought us roughly 3/4 of the 
way to an ignited tokamak reactor, as I pointed out in my other 
article.  The progress is clearly measurable as exponential
growth in a variety of performance yarsticks.  At this point, 
though we haven't solved all the problems to make fusion
economically practical, we have no solid theoretical reason to 
think the problems *aren't* soluble.  And there are a number of
new ideas floating around (reversed shear, CH and VH modes, 
alpha channeling, improved understanding of particle and energy
transport, and others) which give some theoretical reasons
to believe we will continue to make progress.
 
> >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?

That's "neutrino", by the way.  And no, it wasn't clear in the sentence.

As for shortages - there aren't shortages to the point where 
I'd want to rethink all of nuclear physics!  Remember, the 
interiors of stars aren't particularly easy to observe,
so it's possible the nuclear physics we have is good enough, 
and we just don't understand stars that well.  Neutrinos in 
particular are neither fully understood nor easy to measure, 
so I wouldn't use a factor-of-two (not four orders of magnitude) 
shortage of neutrinos to rewrite all the nuclear physics books.
 
> >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.

What's misleading?  Why, despite all the progress, do you not think
there's a future in fusion, in one form or another?  Do you really
think we're all just sitting here in our labs taking in dollars
and doing nothing at all, but for some mysterious reason the 
fusion power output and the plasma triple product are both 
growing exponentially?  

Obviously you're misled about something.  How do we fix that?
 
> 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?

You don't get significant numbers of alpha particles in other plasmas.
The alpha particles have significant effects on the characteristics of 
the plasma.  The presence of tritium also alters the plasma.  You really
can't study these things besides going and doing the actual experiments.
You change the fuel, you change the physics.  You certainly wouldn't
want to build a huge D-T reactor and then discover it didn't work
because the physics was different from what you expected!

Some Examples:

(1) Energy confinement improves in D-T plasmas.  TFTR has increased its
triple product by at least a factor of 1.5, and perhaps a factor of 3, by
going to D-T operation.

(2) Alpha particles can excite plasma instabilities, if caution isn't
taken.
It's crucial for future machines that we understand how to control these
potential problems.

(3) Some energetic alphas can be trapped in the magnetic field and 
drift out of the plasma in certain locations.  On TFTR, they even burned 
a hole in the vacuum vessel.  I'd hate to have that sort of surprise 
happen in a huge superconducting highly-radioactive ignited ITER-type 
machine!  (We're talking *years* of shutdown time here!)  In TFTR 
you just let the machine sit for a couple days, and then you go
fix it.  And having identified the problem, we can now deal with it.

(4) The neutron flux from the reactor generally degrades the 
performance of your diagnostic instruments.  If you don't learn 
how to compensate for this, you won't have functional diagnostics
when you build a real powerplant.  And then you won't be able to
get the thing to run well, because you won't have a clue what's going
on inside.
 
> Could it have been a simple propaganda move? No! Princeton would never
> stoop to publicity to obtain federal funds would it?

It wasn't, and your insinuation that it was is just goofy.  
I won't deny that there was publicity value in setting new fusion
power records (the number of questions asked on this newsgroup
about fusion increased dramatically after the first D-T shots
on TFTR in 1993).  But if that was the motivation, TFTR would
have done D-T back in 1980-something, when it was originally
supposed to.  If we wanted to do D-T purely for publicity to
obtain more funding, we'd have timed it a lot better too.  Running
D-T in December is way out of place relative to the political
cycle.  (Budget hearings are in March-April, and all budgetary
decisions are made over the summer.  Winter is a lousy time
to do anything to obtain federal funds.)  All these questions 
were discussed ad nauseam back in January 1994.  You should 
look up Section 6 of the Fusion FAQ (Recent Results).  

It really isn't a question of "stooping to publicity to 
obtain federal funds."  We do research with public money,
and the public ought to know what the results of that are.
When it was time to do D-T, we did D-T, and then we told
people about it.  If fusion researchers wanted to do
D-T just to get more $$, we'd have gone with D-T back in
1985 or so, when the fusion budget was getting axed 
continuously.  But it wasn't time.  We need to know how
D-T plasmas work *now*, so that we can use the knowledge
in designing ITER and the future power plants.  (Design
work on the first demonstration power plant began
this past year as well.)

There's a huge amount of legitimate science to be done in 
understanding how the real fusion fuel really works.
Impugning the motivations of the research staff
here won't change that.

***************************
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:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Robert Heeter /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research, etc...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research, etc...
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:13:19 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <JAC.95Mar14173046@gandalf.llnl.gov> James Crotinger,
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov 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.

I think for now the development of a moderated group is a 
good step.  If after a year or so it really becomes clear that
we need separate groups, we can start another group.  I think
for now we get the biggest mileage out of making a small
change (adding a moderated group) which will have a large
impact on improving the signal-to-noise ratio.

Several people have argued that the existence of the
sci.physics.plasma group provides a moderated home for
hot fusion research.  However, I believe the charter for
sci.physics.plasma specifically indicates that
fusion-only discussions should not be carried out there.
The publication of TFTR and C-Mod reports there doesn't
mean the group is intended for discussion of fusion research.
The group is designed more for general discussions of
plasma science & technology.

I think a moderated group for all fusion research is a
good idea.  As I see it, topics like the Griggs Gadget, the
free-energy machines, and other topics with no clear-cut 
connection to fusion would be excluded from the moderated
group, and that would make me more than happy.

***************************
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:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Robert Heeter /  Hot Fusion Progress (was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Progress (was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:23:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <AWC.95Mar14163540@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Arthur     
Carlson        TOK, awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
> 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 don't think when measured logarithmically that it makes much 
difference which yardstick you use, especially since true ignition
isn't likely to occur (current drive requirements, etc).  Personally 
my inclination is towards a bang-for-the-buck measurement of
Q-achieved / dollar-spent. (Or whatever unit of currency you wish 
to use.)  In terms of orders of magnitude, fusion power output has 
the same relative distance to go as triple product (and, I suspect, 
various measures involving Q).  Numbers which demonstrate this 
are given below.

>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.)

This is also my other favorite, but it's harder to explain. :)

> 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.

* Here are some quick numbers:

(Sources: (1) 1955 data from the discussion of progress in 
K. Thomassen, "Progress in Magnetic Confinement Fusion Research" 
_Proc. IEEE_ March 1993, pp. 394.  Thomassen cites Wesson's book 
_Tokamaks_, which unfortunately is in the library (I'm at home now).  
(2) 1970 data come from Thomassen/Wesson, plus Colombo & Farinelli,
"Progress in Fusion Energy," in _Annual Reviews of Energy and the
Environment_, 1992.  (3)  The results for TFTR come from the 
Feb. 22, 1995 TFTR News Update, posted to this group by Rich Hawryluk.
(4) The JET values are my own estimate. (5) The ignition range is
from Colombo and Farinelli and agrees with other sources.)

************************************************************
The Triple Product (n*T*(TauE)) Through Fusion History
************************************************************
Best Achieved  in 1955:  about 10^14     keV-sec/m^3
               in 1970:  about 2x10^17   (T3 tokamak in USSR)
TFTR with D-D  in 1992:  3.6 x 10^20     (best D-D data)
TFTR D-T       in 1994:  5.5 x 10^20     (official data)
TFTR D-T       in 1995:  8.3 x 10^20     (preliminary data)
JET (est)             :  1.2 x 10^21
Ignition Requirement  :  3 to 5 x 10^21 


TFTR currently runs a little hotter (factor of 2 to 3) than 
one would have in an ignited reactor, but the densities are
suitable for an ignited plasma, so improvement in the energy 
confinement time (or, alternatively, fusion reactivity)
of about a factor of 10-15 would make TFTR ignite.  JET,
being a larger machine, is in principle a bit closer to the
ignition value of the triple product, but JET is not doing 
D-T research at present.  Given the improvement in 
confinement seen using D-T in TFTR, I have high hopes 
for JET's upcoming D-T phase (1996?).

Historically the trend is for an order-of-magnitude 
improvement in the Triple Product roughly every 5 years.
The advent of the Tokamak in 1968 had a big effect,
increasing the triple product by a factor of 2000 or so
compared to 1950s-era experiments.  Since then, 
the development of improved tokamaks (both bigger
and better) has led to an additional factor of 6000 or 
so increase (1.2 x 10^21 / 2 x 10^17 = 6000).

As Art mentioned, numerically this isn't quite as 
impressive an improvement as the fusion power output 
(8 orders of magnitude since 1970).  But on the other 
hand, we only need an additional factor of 10 or so in 
the triple product to get ignition.  By contrast, we need a 
factor of 300 or so in fusion power output to get a 
3000MW(thermal) power plant making 1000 MW of electricity.
As the table below shows, for each parameter, the 
relative distance (in orders of magnitude) travelled 
since 1970 comes to roughly 3/4 of the total 
improvement needed.  Another way of saying this is
that the remaining distance-to-go is only 1/3 of the
distance travelled since 1970.

* In summary:

*****************************************************
(Approximate) Progress Towards a Fusion Power Plant, 1970-1995
*****************************************************
                      Orders of Magnitude in Parameter
Yardstick             Travelled    Remaining      Remaining/Travelled
==================================================================
Triple Product:          3.8         1.3               0.34
Fusion Power:              8         2.5               0.30

Since progress has traditionally been exponential, the
amount of time it takes to make an order-of-magnitude 
improvement is roughly constant.  Assuming future progress
continues at the same rate as past progress, one would expect
it to take 0.34 times as long to reach ignition as it took
to get where we are now from where we were in 1970.  That
is, we should be able to reach ignition in just 8 years! 
The current plan for fusion calls for the first ignited
reactor (ITER) to come online around 2008, which is actually
13 years from now.  

* Some further, random musings:

I think the slowdown is due to the fact that some of the 
progress made over the last 25 years has been obtained by 
building larger machines, and the "bigger is
better" approach yields diminishing returns because
larger machines take longer to design and build, or else
are not funded at all.  My suspicion is that future 
progress is more likely to arise from "smarter is better" 
improvements.  It might be better to try to maintain 
the TFTR/JET/JT-60U/TPX size of experiment, which is 
flexible and relatively easy to fund within current
budget constraints, and then see if we can innovate 
and improve them to the point where they actually do 
ignite.  ITER is important for testing out reactor
engineering ideas (neutron management, materials testing,
blanket testing, and so on), but it seems ITER is too large 
and expensive to make a working reactor prototype.
Further innovation on smaller machines is both
necessary and, I think, possible.

******************************************************
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:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 10:52:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>_fuel_.  Here, however, Jed seems to be talking about energy per atom of
>_catalyst_.  This makes no sense to me; a catalyst merely facilitates a
>chemical reaction.  It does not change the product species or the amount of
>energy liberated or consumed.
 
You are missing the point! I do NOT think the Pd is acting as a chemical
catalyst. I am saying that if this is a chemical reaction -- of any type --
than the Pd is the only thing in there that can react. Think about it:
 
You have a cellwith a lump of metal, some water, and a tiny amount of salts.
Just three things. Water does not burn; it is chemically inert. There are
not enough salt to produce any measureable chemical reaction (certainly not
200 kJ!), so that leaves only the Pd. If there is any chemical reaction at
all, it must be the metal doing something. What, I do not know. Ask Tom
Droege which chemical reaction he has in mind. I do not think there is any
possible chemical reaction with these materials that could generate more than
a hundred joules at most.
 
In any case, if there *was* a chemical reaction, you would see evidence of
it, wouldn't you? Something would change color, or there would be smoke, or
something. There is nothing like that.
 
The only significant chemical reaction that I know of that can occur in these
cells is the storage of free hydrogen (deuterium) in the metal. After you
turn off electrolysis, the hydrogen slowly leaks out. If you have a recombiner
in the cell, the hydrogen burns and you get a tiny trickle of heat. That
could not begin to explain Oriani's results because it is far too small andd
because he got heat while electrolysis was still turned on. There should have
been a balance between input and output at that stage. Recombination is not
an issue with his cell because it is closed (it has an internal recombiner).
In any case, many other cells have shown more heat than I*V (beyond the limits
of recombination).
 
 
What I am saying is that if you or Tom Droege sincerely believe you can get
a 200 kJ chemical reaction in this cell, then the ball is in your court. Tell
us what chemical reaction that would be! I say that notion is preposterous,
so I do not have to explain why a metal which is normally a catalyst can act
as a fuel instead. I am sure it is not acting as either one. I am quite sure
it is not participating in any chemical reaction. If you think it is, then
tell us what reaction it is and where the fuel is coming from. Explain it as
burning Pd, burning water, or Pd catalyzing burning water -- whichever
hypothesis you like. All chemical hypotheses are equally preposterous and
all are physically impossible.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  alexs@seanet.c /  Maglich & Migma: News?
     
Originally-From: alexs@seanet.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maglich & Migma: News?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 06:34:00 GMT
Organization: Brown Crow

I've been unable to find anything new about migma developments
since Maglich et al published a spate of papers in 1988.

(Nuclear Instr. and Methods, A271 (1988) many pp.)

At last results, AEL had come within 10^2 of density*confinement
at temp to producing aneutronic breakeven.  Are they any closer?

Are they still considering going slightly neutronic (adding D2+ etc)
to raise Q? Any indications that "pure" 3He+/3He+ will generate usable output
without producing radioactive crap?

Is AEL still about?  New consortia?

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenalexs cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 17 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
