1995.03.16 / Tom Droege /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 16 Mar 1995 18:49:33 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3k9rjl$4lu@paperboy.osf.org>, condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) says:
>
>In article <3k9pjt$6tb@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes: 
>> It has been experimentally demonstrated that H2O2 decomposes spontaneously
>> in the presence of Pt, all the way from 0C to 100C.  Tests were conducted
>> using standard 3% grade H2O2.  Decomposition rates increase with temperature.
>
>Many contact-lens wearers could have told you that without the experiment.
>There is a popular lens-sterilizing procedure which consists of sterilizing
>your lenses in peroxide, then putting them in a container with a small
>platinum-coated disk at the bottom of it.  Within 6 hours, the H2O2 is
>H2O and you can put the lenses directly into your eyes.  But note that
>the platinum disk has to be replaced every couple of months, because it
>becomes ineffective (presumably because it has sucked up as much hydrogen
>as it wants from a 3% peroxide solution).
>
>So there is no reason to expect H2O2 to decompose in the presence of
>fully loaded Pt.  Maybe this explanation needs further analysis.
>
>-- 
>Michael Condict                 condict@osf.org
>OSF Research Inst.              (617) 621-7349
>1 Cambridge Center
>Cambridge, MA 02142

I find this very interesting.  Now all we need is a mechanism where it
suddenly becomes active again to explain the heat pulses that I have 
seen.  Not hard to imagine a coating building up, then a crack forming
that blows off the coating.  I remember on some occasions that there 
would be periodic heat pulses.  A few appeared as if something was 
clocking them.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Tom Droege /  Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
Date: 16 Mar 1995 18:55:16 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <USE2PCB473172736@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:
>
>jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
> 
>-> 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 neutr
>-> detector, deep underground in Provo Canyon.
>->
>-> 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.
> 
>Dr. Jones.  I take issue with this approach for the following reason.
> 
>The object I believe is to produce an energy source which is clean and requires
>inexpensive fuel.  Neutrons and generation of radioactive isotopes is a
>negative and should be avoided if possible.  We are wanting to produce energy,
>not breed nasty radioactive isotopes.
> 
>Now, looking at the CF phenominia it becomes apparent that IF something exotic
>is happening, it must be different than normal D-D fusion.  The lack of
>neutrons tells us that.  Basically we have several possibilities, but taking
>the two most obvious ones for me, we could generate energy with a D-D reaction
>which produces neutrons, and hazardous nuclear waste.  Or we could have
>something else happening, such as I outlined (badly) yesterday in which the
>metal is actually being fused with the D or H producing another stable
>element and then may or may not be spitting out an alpha particle, which of
>course would become He4.
> 
>Between the two options, the latter would be the desirable one.  Thus I think
>it unwise, even counterproductive, to offer a reward for people making progress
>on a dirty method, as opposed to a clean method.
> 
>I would liken it to someone long ago offering a reward for anyone finding a
>replacement for wood fuel, and not allowing natural gas as a contender as
>it produces no smoke.  The smoke is irrelevent at best, and undesireable at
>worst.
> 
>                                                                Marshall
> 

OK, I like this.  Make it a reward for finding something desirable.  I 
might add something more myself to the $700 for that.  The real problem
is to figure out how to judge success.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 21:05:59 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Robert F. Heeter comments about the estimated costs of various fusion
power devices:
>ITER is a somewhat pathological case because of the fact that it's an
>international project on an unprecendented scale; I think an actual
>reactor built by a single country wouldn't be quite so bad.

I'm curious as to just *why* a tokomak or similar system would cost a
whole lot.  Assuming that development is done and we have a set of plans,
what are the expensive items?  Is it labor intensive to build large
assemblies to great precision?  I don't believe that extremely exotic
material are needed?  How would it compare to, say, building a prototype
airliner?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 16:57:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "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."
 
For Crying Out Loud John, read the literature. PLEASE read the literature
before cluttering the bandwidth with comments like this. Piantelli reported
320 MJ from a fraction of a liter! Hundreds of other experiments have gone far
beyond your standard. As early as 1991 McKubre reported 45.1 MJ/mole of
cathode material, or 450 eV/atom. No chemical process can get above 18
eV/atom.
 
I don't mind "skeptical" comments, but why on earth can't you people read the
literature?!? What is the matter with you, anyway?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  Kennel /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 16 Mar 1995 21:56:34 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:

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

> Chuck is certainly correct in ascerting that there seems to be a fundamental
> flaw in the basic approach. Whether it is purely a mechanical error or
> a flawed physics is an interesting question and one that is hard for
> physicist to pose since they are thought to be experts in the field.

Didn't a recent Los Alamos experiment quite convincingly demonstrate
neutrino oscillations?  (A "cure" for the solar neutrino problem)

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 17:06:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>If it was that simple, CF would be where superconductors are today. 
>It was not, and it wallows now as it has for years. 
 
Um, Jim? Where were superconductors 5 years after they were discovered, back
in 1911? Where were transistors 5 years after work began on them, in 1931?
For that matter, where are high tempererature superconductors (HTSC) today?
They were discovered a few years before CF, so where are they?
 
Where were incandescent light bulbs in 1864, five years after the first
houses in Boston were outfitted with them? Where were steam ships, diesel
engines, airplanes or automobiles five years after they began? NOWERE, that's
where. All of these technologies "wallowed" in difficult R&D phases for
*decades* after they were first concieved. That is a fact of history. Read
history, and you will see that all R&D always takes a long time and a lot
more trouble than anyone anticipates.
 
>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 
 
Watch out there. Don't mix apples and oranges. That is *my* definition, not
Storms'. His paper and my definition are two completely different subjects.
His paper is about electrochemical CF only, my definition fits a much wider
range of gadgets, some of which I suspect have nothing to do with Pd D2O CF.
I suspect that, but I do not know enough physics to justify my suspicion
with any rigor, so don't ask me to. It is just a hunch.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Characterizing Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Characterizing Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 17:12:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>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.
 
Yes, but on the other hand Griggs, fission and ZPE may just lead us to
solutions to the energy crisis. They might just be a way to save millions
of lives and trillions of dollars while ending most air pollution. So they
should interest any scientist, technologist, or concerned citizen. Some
other forms of energy are not practical. You will never be able to run
a factory or heat your house with the energy from the gravitational
collapse of stars, or from hot fusion. They have no practical use, so
they do not interest me.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Eugene Mallove /  Correction on Bockris
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction on Bockris
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:10:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:

>Also, "Cold Fusion" now boasts an editorial board of:

>Bockris, Hagelstein, Illert, Li, Srinivasan, Sunden, Twain, and Wolff.



Professor John Bockris's name was being used by Wayne Green without his 
authorization. In a letter to Green dated March 3, 1995 (and copied to me), 
Professor Bockris wrote: "I must regretfully ask you to remove my name from 
your publications in the future."


Incidentally, when Wayne Green was a candidate for Vice President of the 
United States in 1988, a similar situation occurred, as documented in the book
by Attorney G. Williamson "See Wayne Run. Run, Wayne Run. An assessment of a 
candidacy" (ISBN 0-945736-01-0)

        "PETERBOROUGH PUBLISHER TO ANNOUNCE
        CANDIDACY FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF U S."

        "A Peterborough publisher is rolling up his sleeves to put America 
ahead of Japan once again in the international technology sweepstakes-and the 
unusual avenue he's selected for that task is the vice presidency of the 
United States.
        "Wayne Green, 64, . . . will announce his candidacy for the vice 
presidency at Wendy's Restaurant in Concord Monday. He will be introduced by 
Sen. Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H . . .
        " 'I'd much prefer to be a vice president with the task of rebuilding 
American productivity, American know-how, American education, American 
take-home pay, and American pride " (Manchester Union Leader, August 29, 1987,
page 5)

        "SEN. HUMPHREY IGNORES GREEN"

        "Senator Gordon Humphrey yesterday declined to endorse Peterborough 
electronics publisher Wayne Green for vice president.
        "Publicity from Green had said Humphrey would be at his side when he 
took the unusual step of declaring himself a vice presidential candidate 
yesterday.
        "Humphrey cancelled the appearance scheduled at Wendy's Restaurant on 
Loudon Road. His aides said it had nothing to do with Green's conviction in 
1974 on income tax fraud.
        "Green, at a press conference yesterday, declared, 'I think I can say 
that I have no stronger a supporter than Sen. Humphrey.' " (Manchester Union 
Leader, September 4, 1987, pages 1, 12)


The author of "Run, Wayne, Run" has for many years been trying to set the 
record straight about Green's "interesting" career by distributing his 
apparently factual account, which uses Green's own words in court testimony, 
newspaper accounts, etc. In a recent letter dated 2/18/94 to an associate, who
has nothing to do with any competitive publication, Attorney Williamson 
writes, "I have long stopped actively selling the book *See Wayne Run, Run 
Wayne Run*, and for myself, and for the now disolved coporation that published
it, I have no objection to its reproduction by anyone in any form."

That's for the record.....


Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Fax:   603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / 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: 16 Mar 1995 16:25:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

William Shaw (wshaw@gate.net) wrote:
: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) 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.
:
: 	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!

Issues 1-3 were of the glossy 80 page variety.  Issues 4-7 have been 32
page non-glossy copies.  The yearly subscription price is $98/year.

The associate editor, Victor Lapuszynski, posts occasionally to this forum.

Also, "Cold Fusion" now boasts an editorial board of:

Bockris, Hagelstein, Illert, Li, Srinivasan, Sunden, Twain, and Wolff.

"Cold Fusion" 603-924-0058      Fax 603-588-3205   
70 Route 202N, Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 16 Mar 1995 16:39:25 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:
: Deuterium Peroxide stores about 4MJ/l, so it would take 50ml to store 200kJ.

Hmm, I figure about 8MJ/l.

: 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.

We've been over this road before:

It has been experimentally demonstrated that H2O2 decomposes spontaneously
in the presence of Pt, all the way from 0C to 100C.  Tests were conducted
using standard 3% grade H2O2.  Decomposition rates increase with temperature.

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:00 -0500 (EST)

jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
 
-> 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 neutr
-> detector, deep underground in Provo Canyon.
->
-> 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.
 
Dr. Jones.  I take issue with this approach for the following reason.
 
The object I believe is to produce an energy source which is clean and requires
inexpensive fuel.  Neutrons and generation of radioactive isotopes is a
negative and should be avoided if possible.  We are wanting to produce energy,
not breed nasty radioactive isotopes.
 
Now, looking at the CF phenominia it becomes apparent that IF something exotic
is happening, it must be different than normal D-D fusion.  The lack of
neutrons tells us that.  Basically we have several possibilities, but taking
the two most obvious ones for me, we could generate energy with a D-D reaction
which produces neutrons, and hazardous nuclear waste.  Or we could have
something else happening, such as I outlined (badly) yesterday in which the
metal is actually being fused with the D or H producing another stable
element and then may or may not be spitting out an alpha particle, which of
course would become He4.
 
Between the two options, the latter would be the desirable one.  Thus I think
it unwise, even counterproductive, to offer a reward for people making progress
on a dirty method, as opposed to a clean method.
 
I would liken it to someone long ago offering a reward for anyone finding a
replacement for wood fuel, and not allowing natural gas as a contender as
it produces no smoke.  The smoke is irrelevent at best, and undesireable at
worst.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / John Vetrano /  Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress (Was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress (Was Re: Solar vs. Fusion)
Date: 16 Mar 1995 17:23:54 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1995Mar15.070611.3979@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:

>  
> > >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.
>  
 [all sorts of editing present above]

FYI, I just happened to stumble across a mention of this very thing. 
There was a brief article in the latest issue of Nuclear News (which is
circulating around my group so I don't have it in front of me) discussing
a recent publication in Phys. Rev. Letters, Nov. 14, 1994 p? by a
researcher from U. Conn.  By performing some experiments which are
believed to be "more realistic" in terms of the processes in the sun, they
were able to understand the previous deficiency in actual neutrino count
vs. theoretical.  They still didn't come out with a theory that exactly
predicts it, but the discrepancy is now much smaller.  I don't know any
more than that, but it is there for the reading.  Sorry I don't have a
more exact reference but with a few minutes at the library looking through
the issues one should be able to find it.  

Hope this is at least a bit helpful

John V.
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / 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: 16 Mar 1995 17:51:07 GMT

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Issues 1-3 were of the glossy 80 page variety.  Issues 4-7 have been 32
: page non-glossy copies.  The yearly subscription price is $98/year.
: The associate editor, Victor Lapuszynski, posts occasionally to this forum.
: Also, "Cold Fusion" now boasts an editorial board of:
: Bockris, Hagelstein, Illert, Li, Srinivasan, Sunden, Twain, and Wolff.
: "Cold Fusion" 603-924-0058      Fax 603-588-3205   
: 70 Route 202N, Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

	This is great stuff. Thanks again for this information.

	wds

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenwshaw cudfnWilliam cudlnShaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / 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: 16 Mar 1995 17:55:07 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3k83vk$hb1@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>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?
>

Yes the New Scientist did call, and I told them what my agreement 
was with Griggs, and I promised to send them the report.  My plan 
is to send the same report to everyone.  The press did not show up
in GA.  I did not invite them.

Tom Droege
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Tom Droege /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 16 Mar 1995 18:05:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I like the idea of offering it as a prize.  Just look what a relatively
small prize did for human powered flight.  

The problem is to determine a way to judge it.  

OK, How about this.  A prize for the first published "protocal" that 
produces excess heat in 8 out of 10 experiments.  Publication can be 
in sci.physics.fusion, or in a standard journal.  

Possibly we can figure out how to put the money at interest tax free
until it is collected.  Might end up being a nice prize. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:25:14 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <JG0YefF.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> 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.
>  
Look at what Jed is saying here, everybody: chemistry, or at least chemisty not
involving the palladium, is excluded on theoretical grounds (whether they are sound
theoretical grounds, I'll leave to the chemists).

Imagine that, *Jed Rothwell* excluding something on theoretical grounds!  The same
Jed Rothwell who is willing to accept that what is actually going on is nuclear
fusion!

I had to chuckle.

Thanks again, Jed, for your contribution to net.comedy.

Mike Griffin
(Speaking strictly for me.)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Michael Condict /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 16 Mar 1995 17:13:25 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In article <3k9pjt$6tb@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes: 
> It has been experimentally demonstrated that H2O2 decomposes spontaneously
> in the presence of Pt, all the way from 0C to 100C.  Tests were conducted
> using standard 3% grade H2O2.  Decomposition rates increase with temperature.

Many contact-lens wearers could have told you that without the experiment.
There is a popular lens-sterilizing procedure which consists of sterilizing
your lenses in peroxide, then putting them in a container with a small
platinum-coated disk at the bottom of it.  Within 6 hours, the H2O2 is
H2O and you can put the lenses directly into your eyes.  But note that
the platinum disk has to be replaced every couple of months, because it
becomes ineffective (presumably because it has sucked up as much hydrogen
as it wants from a 3% peroxide solution).

So there is no reason to expect H2O2 to decompose in the presence of
fully loaded Pt.  Maybe this explanation needs further analysis.

-- 
Michael Condict			condict@osf.org
OSF Research Inst.		(617) 621-7349
1 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencondict cudfnMichael cudlnCondict cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: hughl@news.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 16 Mar 1995 17:31:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <h8+6O+k.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> 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

Comparing biomass to solar electricity is apples to oranges w/r/t:
  energy storage and transportation!

Solar cells output electricity that must be:
 transformed to useable voltages and 
 transmitted to where it is used IMMEDIATELY
	eg how do we use solar energy at midnight? 
	   12,500 mile transmission OR 
	   conversion from chemical energy storage

biomass is chemically STORED energy
 it must be converted to the appropriate form of useful energy

The cost of solar electricity must include allowance for storage or
replacement power for when solar cannot be used.
-- 
	Hugh Lippincott 	     hughl@an.hp.com


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Visit Report Part 3 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Report Part 3 of 5
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:53:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

 Part 3 of 5

    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

    F)De-briefing

    After making my way back to the motel, I spent several hours going over
    my notes and list of questions, an made further notes on my
    recollections.  Below I repeat the headings from the first section with
    my notes added.

    1)History

    How did they get into this work?  What led them to suspect the device
    was over unity and to test for it?

    I believe that Griggs started this work as just a way to make steam/hot
    water without the problems of a boiler or electric heater.  Griggs said
    his tests just indicated over unity operation.  He started the work
    early in 1989, so possibly Pons and Flieschmann's work came along to
    re-enforce his over unity results.  I found him a little vague on this
    topic, possibly as a patent defense as he may want to claim that he
    started his work before P&F.

    2)Set Up

    Is the test equipment of sufficient quality to make the claimed
    measurements?

    The experimental setup appeared to be made of high quality components.
    I believe the components are of high enough quality that proper
    measurements can be made to give a definitive answer to the "over
    unity" question.

    3)Control Experiment

    Have they done a control experiment(s)?

    They have done an experiment with a blank rotor.  They find that
    efficiency with a blank rotor is 0.96 to 0.98.  This will be discussed
    later.

    4)Calibration

    Have they done a convincing calibration on each of their measuring
    devices?

    I did not detect any calibration experiments.  This was one of the most
    critical items on my list.  I did not find a single plot in the plant.
    I was looking for calibration curves, thermocouple curves, curves of
    efficiency vs load, temperature, anything, etc..  On purpose I did not
    ask for curves.  I wanted to see how their thought process worked.
    They simply do not think in terms of designing an experiment to test
    dependence on some variable and plotting the results.

    OK, they may have some curves.  But they did not shove any in my face
    and say "see here is how a depends on b".

    5)Log Book Procedure

    Have they kept a good log book?  Can I look at the log book entries and
    trace their thinking through experiment, analysis of results, and re-
    experiment to confirm the results?  Does the log book time sequence
    make sense?  Do they have curves for all their calibration experiments?
    Do the calibrations support the conclusions?

    They do not keep a log book.  While I suppose that it is possible to do
    science without a log book, none of my friends seem to do so.  This was
    the most critical item on my list.  I wanted to look at the time
    sequence in the log and see how they thought when they found a positive
    result.  Did they then design an experiment that asked the question
    "why?".  Or did they just accept the result and congratulate
    themselves.

    They do have a form that they use to run a test.  This form is much
    like what would be used for a production test.  Write down all the
    meter readings and the COP (Coefficient of Performance).

    6)Redundancy

    Is there enough redundancy built into the experiment so that it is not
    dependent on any one device or type of device?

    It would appear that they have received the message that their
    measurements should be redundant.  There are two pretty different ways
    to measure power.  This would ordinarily be pretty convincing.  I asked
    for a plot (I remember - but not sure.  This may be the only time I asked
    to see a plot of something.) of one against the other, they were only
    able to say that they read the same.  How much the same I want to know!

    There is a flow meter and they weigh the water to check it.  There are
    six (6) count em thermocouples on the input and six on the output.
    There is at least one more dial thermometer on the output.

    So I think there are enough different ways to measure things to detect
    a problem if the experiment is designed properly and everything is
    properly calibrated.

    7)Hypothesis

    When they do an experiment, do they set out to measure a specific thing
    that will confirm or deny their idea of what is happening?

    I did not detect that they try to measure anything except over unity
    operation.  I think all their tests are pointed in this direction.
    There is some evidence that they have recently started tests to see
    what might be going on in the device.  They have put a glass window in
    one pump -it failed, and have a plastic cased pump on the bench.

    8)Error Study Procedure

    How well do they study their errors?

    They do not seem to compute sigma of anything.  They compute the mean
    of a large number of readings on their thermocouples.  The noise level
    could be quite high.  I watched one thermocouple and it varied 0.4
    F on two successive readings.  Since this was the difference in means
    between two (100 sample?) readings, those of you that are statistically
    inclined can make an estimate.  When I brought this up, Dan Parker
    seemed to understand what I was worried about.  I got glazed looks
    from the rest.

    9)Ultrasonic Effects

    Have they considered what all that ultrasonic energy might do to the
    various transducers involved?

    I was worried that all that ultrasonic energy might be getting into the
    torque meter strain gage and would affect it's reading.  They said that
    they too were worried about this, but that the two power meters read
    the same, and they quit worrying about it.  Me, I would still worry.
    But I must admit, I do not see a mechanism where the ultrasonic energy
    would affect both measurements the same.  Still, they did not produce a
    curve showing what "the same" meant.

    What does all that ultrasonic energy do to all those thermocouples?  I
    don't know.  Does anyone?  Did they do an experiment to test?  Not that
    I saw.  But it would just have to shift the curve a little!  Remember
    it is 50 HP or so of energy.  I could not hear anything.  Seems to me
    they had made some measurements of this - I remember it was in the 18-
    70 KHz range.

    10)Experiment or is it Anecdotal?

    Are they doing experiments or do they just have anecdotal evidence?

    I think sort of in between.  They have folders full of their test
    sheets, but it would appear that they do that which gives them the
    largest result.

    During the course of the discussion I was trying to get across the idea
    that one should try to test the concept by trying an entirely different
    approach which still included the concept.  Suppose it is happening due to
    the ultrasonic effects in the drill holes.  So I suggested that a
    possible test would be to build a similar device using a piston.  They
    said they had tried a piston but that "it didn't work".  No evidence
    that they were really worried about why.

    11)Is Experiment Designed to find Errors?

    Have they designed experiments to find errors in other experiments?

    My notes say "Don't really seem to be aggressively looking for errors."

    12)Do They Understand the Significance of their Claim?
    Do they understand how much science has been done in this area?

    I asked this question directly of Jim Griggs.  He said, yes, it
    violates the second law of thermodynamics.  But I think they have no
    concept of the amount of work that has been done in this area.  I have
    no concept myself.  But I know there has been a lot of very careful
    work.

    13)Theory Development

    Have they developed a theory as to what might be going on?

    They have no theory.

    14)Paper Structure

    Is their paper structured like a normal scientific paper?

    This is here just to make a point of it.  The ICCF-4 paper is more a
    publicity blurb than a scientific paper.

    15)Literature Study

    Have they studied the literature in this area?

    Griggs said that they had really only done the patent search.  There is
    not much literature on this type of device.

    End of Part 3

    Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1989 CalTech work was *positive*
Date: 17 Mar 1995 00:51:02 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3k5nlk$keg$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell  
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> 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. 

Hmm--thats the first time I have heard that. This would be amusing,
as I met with lewis (I forget the occasion) shortly after his
big negative result, and he seemed quite disgusted with the
whole CF affair---really wanted to wash his hands of it
after so thoroughly debunking it.

On the other hand, I take him to be an honorable guy, and I doubt
he would deny his errors if they were truly exposed. 

Can you fill us in on the details?



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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uses for the remaining $700 Droege fund
Date: 17 Mar 1995 01:00:47 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <USE2PCB687869192@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL  
DUDLEY) writes:

>  
> Sorry, but I consider funding an encumberment that also leaves me open to
> accusations of bias.  


I don;t think anyone would seriously accuse you of bias for
using $700 to cover the costs of two peple staying an extra day
or two in order to do a second round of experiments/wrap up 
loose ends from the first day.

I think it would have been unwise for you to go at the 
same time as Tom D---from his large report produced (~13 pages),
it sounds like he required a good chunk of Griggs attention. 
Trying to simultaneously run you experiments would have diluted
that, and also prevented you from taking advantage of any
issues Tom D may have noticed.

In the same vein, I also think its unwise to try and do 
all necessary experiments in one day. Two days (even 3) makes much
more sense, since you can use the second day(s) to answer
any questions that will undoubtedly occur to you at the
end of the first day of tests.

Whether you use the fund or not, I think adding a second day 
would enourmously improve the quality of the results you get.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update 17-Mar-95
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update 17-Mar-95
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:25:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Papers: Current count = 1022
^^^^^^^
#
Oriani RA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 235.
"The physical and metallurgical aspects of hydrogen in metals".
** Metallurgy, theory, hydrides, thermodynamics, no FPH/Jones ref
Oriani is clearly an expert in the area of metal hydrides and this review is a
mine of information on the subject. Much is known here and 'cold fusion'
workers should be aware of the knowledge base, outlined here in compressed
form. Sievert's law, empirically describing the relation between hydrogen
loading in a metal and hydrogen pressure, is derived simply, and elaborated.
Many relevant topics are covered: fugacity/pressure relations, interstitial
occupancy (octahedral/tetrahedral), hydrogen-metal interactions, lattice
imperfections, phase relations, isotope effects, the transport of hydrogen
within metals, surface effects on entry into and exit from the metal of
hydrogen, metal stresses.  There is a brief remark about fractofusion, and the
simplistic explanation of 'excess heat' as a result of mechanical stress
release. 145 references.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Ota K-I, Yoshitake H, Yamazaki O, Kuratsuka M, Yamaki K, Ando K, Iida Y,
Kamiya N;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 138.
"Heat measurement of water electrolysis using Pd cathode and the
electrochemistry"
** Experimental, Pd, Pd-Ag alloy, Li inclusion, excess heat, res+
** no FPH/Jones ref
A fairly standard calorimetry experiment (not much detail) using several Pd
cathodes, some with Ag alloying, some mechanically treated by "compression
after making notches". It is not clear how the heat calibration is done but a
Figure shows a curve very close to 1:1 power out vs in. This was also achieved
with light water controls, but out of 18 runs with heavy water, 9 achieved
some excess heat, one of them up to 74%, generally in the form of short
bursts. No clear effect due to alloying or mechanical treatment can be seen.
Another effect looked at was the inclusion of Li by electrolysis. SIMS was
used to find out how much Li was absorbed, and it was found that this
increased with current density, up to 7.2 at% at the surface at 500 mA/cm^2.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Pons S, Fleischmann M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 87.
"Heat after death".
** Experimental, polemic, excess heat, res+
This says nothing that has not already been said, especially in the authors'
paper in Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 118. There is some rebuttal of Morrison's
critique of that paper (same journal) but this, too, has now been published,
again in that same journal. Here we see a large number of cooling curves, some
of them claimed to show great amounts of excess heat, up to about 4 kW/cm^3 of
Pd. Again, there is mention of cells that have run dry but with the "rail
voltage" of the power supply still connected.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Preparata G;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 397.
"Cold fusion '93: Some theoretical ideas".
** Theory, res+
Preparata starts with posing some hard questions, such as how does CNF proceed
or what is the dynamics of deuterons and electrons in the metal deuteride, why
are deuterons so mobile, etc. He then outlines his theory, which explains all.
This involves the d-electrons of Pd providing screening for deuterons in
tetrahedral positions, the plasma of delocalised s-electrons, site occupancy,
phases with their chemical potentials, etc. After many equations, P concludes
that CNF is real, but much more theory and experiment is needed.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Stukan PA, Rumyantsev YuM, Shishkov AV;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 461.
"Generation of hard radiation and accumulation of tritium during electrolysis
of heavy water".
** Experimental, electrolysis, Pd, Ti, rods, res+, no FPH/Jones ref.
The electrolyte was 2% Li2CO3 in D2O; Pd and Ti rods, 4mm diameter, surface
area ca. 1 cm^2, were used as cathodes, current density 1 A/cm^2. Hard
radiation was measured with a beta-type scintillation setup employing three
photomultiplier tubes arranged around the cell. The background count was
1/min. Tritium was detected in aliquots taken from the electrolyte, by liquid
scintillation. In many experiments, the average hard radiation count rate was
1-4 c/min, several times the rate at no cell current, or with light water. In
some cases, radiation turned on after some hours, and died again upon current
switch-off. There was a steady increase in tritium with time on both Pd and Ti
(less with Ti). Rough calculations show that there is an order 4 imbalance
between the (t,p) and (3He,n) channels, as observed by others (i.e. a dearth
of neutrons). No excess heat was seen but does not seem to have been actively
looked for, except as an expectation of cells boiling dry as reported by F&P.
#...................................................................... Mar-95


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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron claims:  Retraction and Reward Offer
Date: 17 Mar 1995 01:10:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995Mar15.143600.2126@physc2.byu.edu>  writes:
> I cannot let this one pass by without comment:

> 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


Hey, thats a great idea. Actually, we don;t need the trip 
fund as colateral for this---the odds that anyone will collect
are so slim I'd cover that out of my pocket.

Your tale of a buggy detector is well taken---its rather
similar to stories of UFO sighting simultaneously verified
by radar blips. The truth was that, esp in the early days,
the radars were very noisy, so there were frequently small
spurious signals on the screen. Thus any UFO sigting would
have radar corroboration.

This is a general lesson about look for signals in the noise of
your detectors.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /   /  Re: Neutrino?
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrino?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:15:02 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On 15 Mar 1995, PAULO JORGE BARBOSA PEREIRA DA CUNHA wrote:

> 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.
> 

Neutrinos have spin, just like electrons, but not much else. We only see 
their interaction when we check things like conservation of angular 
momentum and it doesn't add up to what is should. We use neutrinos to 
make up the difference. There are reseachers who believe that neutrinos 
do have mass, however small. I believe they are at Los Alamos National 
Labs, (Someone check me on this) but their claim is still contraversial.


	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light Ion Fusion Computational Experimentalist
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenaavd cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Take Cold Fusion Seriously - more info sources
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 01:50:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3k9tqb$1uu5@tequesta.gate.net>
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
William Shaw (wshaw@gate.net) wrote:

    John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
    : Issues 1-3 were of the glossy 80 page variety.  Issues 4-7 have been 32
    : page non-glossy copies.  The yearly subscription price is $98/year.
    : The associate editor, Victor Lapuszynski, posts occasionally to this forum.
    : Also, "Cold Fusion" now boasts an editorial board of:
    : Bockris, Hagelstein, Illert, Li, Srinivasan, Sunden, Twain, and Wolff.
    
	"This is great stuff. Thanks again for this information."

William Shaw is correct and smarter than many who proclaim
what they "think" is going on.. 
   Despite the too  often rabid attacks, cold fusion actually
now includes aqueous, gas, and solid-state systems.
 The COLD FUSION TIMES
 ($120. per year) is entirely dedicated to novel R&D in this field.
Four back issues are available, along with the current edition
 1)  volume #3, number #1  - $15
or 2)  $39 for five (5) issues to celebrate the six (6th) anniversary of
the field consisting of Vol. 3 number 1 and four additional back issues
(Volumes 1 number 2, 3, 4 and Volume 2, number 1) 
for a savings of ~86%! [*outside US.  +$3.00 S+H , US funds only]

       COLD FUSION TIMES    
        Dept. CSA
        P.O. Box 81135
        Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts  02181


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Klaus Woerle /  Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
     
Originally-From: woerlek@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Klaus Woerle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Summer University for Plasma Physics (Repost)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:49:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


*****************************************************************
*   Summer University for Plasma Physics:  25 - 29 Sept. 1995   *
*****************************************************************
*   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik - Garching, Germany   *
*****************************************************************



The 'Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)' in Garching near Munich
is organizing a Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995.
The course will cover the main aspects of plasma physics with emphasis
on nuclear fusion. It is being held for European physics students who
have passed their basic courses and have not yet started a doctoral (PhD)
thesis. The lectures will be presented in English and lecture notes will
be provided to all students selected. Cost of accomodation and boarding
will be covered. Limited funds are available for travel expenses for
foreign students.

The following lectures will be offered: basic plasma physics - particle
trajectories - kinetic theory, MHD - equilibrium, stability and transport
in tokamaks - plasma heating - experimental results on tokamaks -
stellarators - computer simulation of plasmas - plasma-wall interaction -
plasma diagnostics - inertial fusion - fusion technology - safety and
environmental aspects of fusion - plasma technology.

The course will include visits to the large plasma experiments on site:
ASDEX Upgrade (tokamak) and WENDELSTEIN 7-AS (stellarator).
Information on the optimized stellarator WENDELSTEIN 7-X to be built
in Greifswald (Germany) will be provided. The 'Max-Planck-Institut
fuer Plasmaphysik' is host to an international design team for the next
step fusion experiment, ITER, the status of which will be reported.

Another goal of the Summer University is to promote an exchange of views
among the coming generation of European scientists. An opportunity for
discussions with lecturers and the other students will be provided in
evening sessions.

Information about the institute and its experiments can be retrieved
through WWW on URL:
        http://www.ipp-garching.mpg.de/ipp/home_eng.html

Application letters with high school leaving certificate and evidence
of basic physics study (copies!) should be sent by 31 May 1995 to

Mrs. Ch. Stahlberg
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik
Boltzmannstrasse 2
D - 85748 Garching
Germany

phone: +49 / 89 / 3299 - 2232
fax:   +49 / 89 / 3299 - 1001




cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwoerlek cudfnKlaus cudlnWoerle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Richard Blue /  Jed's logic
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's logic
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 16:31:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The logic of Jed's argument seems simple enough.  We have: either A or B must
be true.  It is not A.  Therefore B must be true.

Now for the details.  Proposition A is that CF involves ordinary chemistry.
Reference of prior experimental results relating to chemistry and the use
of theory relating to standard chemistry "prove" that A is not true.
In this case data derived in other settings and old, proven theories are
accepted as part of this proof.

However, when Proposition B, that CF involves a nuclear reaction process,
is to be tested all reference to prior experimentation and theory is
rejected as being invalid or irrelevant.  Do we see a slight inconsistency
here?

Actually Jed's reasoning is flawed on another score.  We don't actually
have a situation where either A or B must be true so Jed's argument
is faulty to begin with.  There is a third possibility C lurking in the
background that must be considered.  It is possible the CF claims are
based on something that is neither chemical nor nuclear.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Richard Blue /  Why so neutronphobic?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why so neutronphobic?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 16:46:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sense that neutrons are getting a bad rap in this news group.  I think that
is wrong.  More than half the mass of ordinary matter on earth is in the
form of neutrons, and neutrons should be given credit for all the good they
do for us.  The commercial potential for a good source of neutrons is clearly
being underestimated by those who would turn CF's lack of neutron production
into an assest.

As I see it, had the original Pons and Fleischmann experiments produced
neutrons at the level commensurate with the claimed excesss heat there
would already be several commercial ventures making use of the new
technology.  It is obvious that a source of a few tens of watts of low-grade
energy isn't very exciting commercially speaking.  However, a source of
10^12 neutrons per second is easily worth many millions of dollars.  Making
CF neutron-free is clearly not such a good idea.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Paul Hagyard /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weir
     
Originally-From: paul@auck.irl.cri.nz (Paul Hagyard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weir
Date: 17 Mar 1995 02:17:52 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Ltd, New Zealand

 > The basic theory, which I haven't seen credibly discounted, 
> is that cases of spontaneous combustion usually involve
> someone drunk or otherwise severley impaired, falling
> asleep with a cigarete or other flame source. Then, they 
> burn like a candle, as Paul K says, due to the ample amounts
> of bodyfat available as fuel.

I am convinced it is a result of the aluminium induced as a result of cooking
with aluminium pots. Of course the aluminium could also come from beer cans.

This reacts with the HCL in your stomach to form hydrogen. This reacts with 
your flame source and.... <BOOOOOMMMMMMMM> :-)

Paul 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnHagyard cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Edward Lewis /  selling articles
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: selling articles
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 02:06:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Edward Lewis							March 6, 1995
P.O. Box 13060
Chicago, Illinois 60613

Letter to the Editor
	
	When I first learned about the phenomena called "cold fusion"
in March or April of 1989, I was looking for evidence of the recent
production of significant anomalies of the quantum mechanics and
relativity theories, contradictions of the basic ideas of Quantum
Mechanics and Relativity theory which Einstein had formulated about
1905.  This is because I was then developing a theory about the 80
year periodicity of revolutions in the development of science which
would explain the "Kondratiev cycle," an approximately 40 to 60 year
periodicity of economic depressionary periods in the economies of the
capitalist countries that Kondratiev, a Russian economist who lived
decades ago, thought had occurred.  I suspected that changes of
science theory happened at 80 year intervals, 1905 Einstein, 1820
Faraday; and I was looking for the recent production of anomalies that
occurs before such changes of theory during the times that Kuhn called
"crisis periods." At that time, I figured that superconductivity which
was discovered 3 years earlier was such an anomaly, but I was looking
for others, and I thought that cold fusion was also such an anomaly.

	Most of you who have been producing anomalous phenomena were
born about 1935 or 1945, give or take some years, and learned and
apprehended quantum mechanics and relativity theories as you were
growing up.  You were born about the time that those in your parentsU
generation, such as Schwinger, Tomonaga, and de Broglie, were
substantially developing quantum mechanics theory.  Your parents'
generation was in turn born about 1905, give or take some years, which
was when Einstein was formulating the fundamental ideas of quantum
mechanics and relativity theories.  There were three generations
involved in the development and contradiction of the quantum mechanics
and relativity theories.  This 3 stage, generational development --
formulation of fundamental ideas of a new physics theory, development
of theory, and experiencing of fundamental anomalies has recurred 6
times since 1506, when Copernicus formulated a fundamental physics
theory.  The three stages have taken about 80 years on average,
between about 72 to 90 years in each case.  The approximate timing of
the pattern of the initial formulation of theory was, in my opinion,
1506 - Copernicus, 1582 - Gilbert, 1593 - Galileo, and 1595 - Kepler,
1664 - Newton, sometime about the years 1740 or 1747 - Franklin, 1820
- Faraday, and 1905 - Einstein.  Gilbert, Galileo, and Kepler more or
less independently formulated similar theories because they resolved
the same set of phenomena, the phenomena that contradicted or accorded
with Copernican theory.

	I have copies of an approximately 35 page, single space, paper(1)
in which I describe the patterns of the 80 year periodicity of the
development of physics somewhat detailedly, the 80 year periodicity of
technological change since 1790, and the approximately 40 year
periodicity of economic depressionary periods in the lead
technological economies since 1790 that is an economic effect of the
scientific and technological development periodicity.  There are two
different kinds of depressionary periods that alternate -- during each
change of technology and during the middle of each technological
phase.  I describe a theory to resolve these patterns, and include a
graph and a plot.  I would like to make this available for 20 dollars,
please also include postage, though I might consider less money for
some people.  And I will include a version of a 10 page, single space,
paper(2) which I have submitted to several periodicals in which I
describe some of the ideas of my theory of the new set of phenomena --
plasmoids, cold fusion, superconductivity, etc.  Versions of parts(3) of
this latter paper have been published in two newsletters.

	I've also written a 23 page list(4) of all the cold fusion and
cold fusion related documents in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, starting from 1989
and concluding in September of 1994.  I may extend this.  I thoroughly
searched and tried to find every article, letter to the Editor,
editorial note, book review, and meeting report, anything that
mentioned "cold fusion" or "muon-catalyzed fusion;" and I listed the
names, affiliation, and general location or address of the authors,
and the titles of the documents chronologically by month, volume
number, and issue number.  This is available for 10 dollars.  I'll try
to condense this by printing the list in columns.  People may find
that this is helpful for learning about the development of the
science, and finding people.  For these articles, please send a check
or money order to me at the address that follows.  Self-addressed and
stamped envelopes would be welcome.  If I donUt want to send someone
anything, I'll send back to that person the money and any postage and
envelopes.

		Edward Lewis, P.O. Box 13060, Chicago, Illinois  60613

	In a letter to the Editor(5) of FUSION FACTS which is a
newsletter about cold fusion phenomena that I wrote a few months ago,
I suggested that people arrange for democratic organization for
international cold fusion meetings.  I think that if people could vote
about the agenda of these meetings, the things that happen and what is
said and done may be more in accord with their interests and research
interests, in my opinion.  I'd like to encourage people to report
about the anomalies that they are finding that they can't explain.



1)E. Lewis, THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA AND THE
PAST PERIODIC DEPRESSIONS, manuscript, copyright 1992, 1994, and 1995.

2)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," manuscript article, submitted
to "CF" MAGAZINE, June 13, 1994, FUSION FACTS, August 29, 1994, and
"CF" NEWSLETTER, September 1994 and February 1994.

3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," COLD FUSION TIMES, 2 (no.1), 4
(Summer, 1994) (this was a continuation of E. Lewis, "Luminous
Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," COLD FUSION TIMES, 1 (no. 4), 4
(Winter, 1994)).
and "Some Important Kinds of Plasmoid Traces Produced
By Cold Fusion Apparatus," FUSION FACTS, 6 (no. 8), 16 (February,
1995).

4)E. Lewis, "List of 'Cold Fusion' Documents and 'Cold Fusion' Related
Documents in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a Journal of the American Nuclear
Society, 1989 - September, 1994," submitted to "COLD FUSION" MAGAZINE,
June 14, 1994, and "COLD FUSION" NEWSLETTER, September 1994.  Info.
about the December 1989 issue is incomplete.

5)E. Lewis, Letter to the Editor, FUSION FACTS, 6 (no. 3), 22
(September, 1994); part of "Suggested Priorities for an Agenda for CF
Researchers" was also published or paraphrased with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Edward Lewis /  BL
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BL
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 02:12:34 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the December,
1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion experiments,
and he suggests that people use nuclear emulsions.  He's written
manuscripts about tiny ball lightning that are produced by discharge
apparatus also.  Sufficient evidence of the production of things that
can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the many kinds of
plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the EB-filament paper
by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.  Bostick, J. Feugeas, and
W. Prior, "Internal Structure of ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical
Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).  This is substantial
proof, in my opinion.  Some of the ring traces are very similar, and
some of the other traces are similar too.  I'd also like to suggest
that people use nuclear emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion
and plasmoid experiments.  Many of the plasmoids produced by
electrolysis and discharge are the same.  And people have known for a
long time that plasmoids and discharges are associated with neutron
production.  They are the locus of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.15 / Jeff Greason /  Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: 15 Mar 1995 20:45:11 GMT
Organization: Intel PTD, Aloha, OR

If any serious fusion workers still read this white noise generator...

Can you enlighten us on the status of electrostatic confinement
fusion?  This is a scheme that Bob Hirsch worked on back in the 60's,
and Bob Forward had published some papers on quite recently.  It
sometimes goes under the acronym QED.

My interest in fusion research is strictly part-time, but in
contrast to various magnetic confinement schemes, electrostatic
confinement seems to have quite simple (but elegant) physics
(that means even I can work out some of the equations :-) 
And when I run some numbers, confining quite promising densities
of ~100keV plasma certainly seems workable.

So, we've got a concept, explored by some knowledgeable people,
which seems quite promising -- it it going somewhere?  If not,
why not (i.e., are the obstacles technical or financial).  And
if financial, how much money is needed?  (QED concepts certainly
look, to my inexpert eye, as if construction costs are millions
and not billions, since scaling the system down actually makes
some things easier).

Is anyone who's working in this area still reading the group?
If so, I'd be interested in hearing from you (email would probably
be preferable).

Introduction (for those who've never heard of this before)
(Quick, inexpert summary of QED below, as I understand it).

Purely electrostatic scheme:
   Uses something like a spherical vacuum tube: the inner
grid is maintained at a very negative potential with respect
to the outer grid.  Ionized fusion fuels are introduced into
the interior -- these are positive ions.  They are confined
by the positive potential of the outer grid.
   Limit here is confinement time problems due to interactions
with the inner grid (although it seems to me that very modest
magnetic fields could deflect incoming ions from grid collisions).

Mixed magnetic/electrostatic scheme.
   Magnetic fields arranged on the edges of a polyhedron
serve as a psuedo-spherical "magnetic mirror" to confine
electrons.  Electrons are injected into the interior of
the device on an ongoing basis, and if you lose a few,
so what?  Electrons are cheap.
   This electron cloud creates a deeply negative potential
well.  Positive ions are then confined inside this negative
potential well as in the scheme above -- but now there's
no "inner grid".

Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
     and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
  <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com>  and do the other things, not because they 
  <greason@ix.netcom.com>     are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK 
   
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengreason cudfnJeff cudlnGreason cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Scott Little /  Is the "excess heat" phenomena real?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is the "excess heat" phenomena real?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 04:18:23 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I am  still interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in calorimetry.
I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying design ranging in
scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently have running a computer-based
differential calorimeter which is quite suitable for cold fusion work.  It is
an integrating calorimeter which is necessary for measuring experiments that
are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber is readily adjustable to
accomodate different sized devices.

In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
one that does produce excess heat).

If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one month, I
will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.

Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.

Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Characterizing Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Characterizing Cold Fusion
Date: 17 Mar 1995 04:33:51 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <B8wZW1K.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> You will never be able to run
> a factory or heat your house with the energy from the gravitational
> collapse of stars, or from hot fusion. They have no practical use, so
> they do not interest me.
>  
> - Jed

Oh, J., quite being so obtuse. Reread your ARIES report. All they 
say is that _current_ fusion technology would probably lead to
8--15 cents/KWH cost of electricity for a commercial plant---nothing
to write home about, but rediculously far from saying you can never
use hot fusion to power anything.

Where do you live---I'd love to throw a party for you on the 
day Pons and Fleishmann official renounce their cold fusion 
claims. (Or, maybe they'll just do like the N-Ray discover and
commit suicide ...)




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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 17 Mar 1995 04:37:50 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995Mar16.210559.2233@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick  
Jackson) writes:
> Robert F. Heeter comments about the estimated costs of various fusion
> power devices:
> >ITER is a somewhat pathological case because of the fact that it's an
> >international project on an unprecendented scale; I think an actual
> >reactor built by a single country wouldn't be quite so bad.
> 
> I'm curious as to just *why* a tokomak or similar system would cost a
> whole lot.  Assuming that development is done and we have a set of plans,
> what are the expensive items?  Is it labor intensive to build large
> assemblies to great precision? 

Yes, and 

> I don't believe that extremely exotic
> material are needed?  How would it compare to, say, building a prototype
> airliner?


Exotic material are needed, namely superconducting magnetics and 
possibly carbon composite tiles, etc.

Also, they need robotic remote maintainace, and operating costs
are around ~100M/year as well.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N.Lewis' calorimetric results
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 22:10:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

This letter is in connection with the question someone asked 
about N.Lewis' calorimetric results published in Nature and 
in Science. As we have shown in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993) 
the calorimetric method used by N.Lewis et al is inappropriate. 
Nevertheless, a more thorough analysis of the data presented by 
N.Lewis et al (if one is to believe the numbers published therein) reveals that 
the analysis made by these authors of their own results is flawed. 
If the calorimetric data published by N.Lewis et al in Nature 
and Science are properly analyzed one has to conclude that 
these authors reproduce Fleischmann and Pons' effect. Later 
the same arguments in support of the above conclusion were 
published also by M.Miles et al in J.Phys.Chem. I would like to 
let you know that I am in possession of an extensive discussion with 
Nature on this matter, spanning for over two years. Unfortunately, 
despite the fact that Nature was unable to defend N.Lewis' position 
and despite the fact that at one point there was a promise on the 
side of Nature to publish our analysis, until now there is not a 
word about it in Nature. You probably would like to know that we 
have published a similar analysis of the work at MIT led by M.Wrighton --
Fusion Technology, 19, 579 (1991). As it is seen from the latter paper 
the analysis of MIT's group of their calorimetric results is also 
flawed. For the record, I would like to let you know that the MIT and 
the Caltech groups have worked in an unannounced cooperation (N.Lewis 
is a student of M.Wrighton). In connection with MIT's results I also 
have extensive correspondence. On two occasions I wrote 16 letters to 
each one of the authors of the MIT paper published in J.Fusion Energy; 
the only technical reply by S.Lockhardt even further confirmed the 
conclusion that MIT have produced excess heat. For the record, you 
should know that I am in possession of a hand-written note by 
one of the authors -- R.Petrasso -- in which 
he informs me that he is not an expert in this 
field. This makes me wonder why has he agreed to be listed as 
one of the authors of this paper. Also, why is Petrasso still 
making statements referring to excess heat before newspapers such as 
Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. I would also 
add that I submitted a letter to Nature referring to the reply by 
the authors of the MIT group. After a year Nature replied that 
this journal does not publish discussion of papers published 
elsewhere. This makes me wonder why did Nature publish Petrasso 
et al's commentary on Fleischmann and Pons' paper regarding 
gamma-spectrum -- Fleischmann and Pons' paper was not published in 
Nature but in J.Electroanal.Chem. In connection with MIT's work 
I also found that there was a deliberate shift of the final excess 
power curve in MIT's paper so as to apper 
that no excess power was produced in 
their experiment (surprisingly, even applying the flawed 
analysis these authors have produced an intermediate report with 
an obvious excess power available; to this day it is not clear 
why this excess power curve had been shifted; note also that 
thorough analysis of the MIT data reveals excess power much 
higher than it appears in the author's interim report). 

Careful observation of the literature data seems to reveal that, despite 
the created opinion, the appearance of excess heat is always readily 
reproducible in all cases (please, note that observation of heat 
bursts is a separate phenomenon which Fleischmann and Pons clearly 
distinguish).

Finally, I would like to let you know that currently I am carrying out 
experiments, by applying a specially designed novel technique,  
which, as it appears, will provide the conclusive answer to the 
question for the reality of excess heat. Of course, upon 
finishing the experiments I will submit the results to a peer-
reviewed archival journal. I may also post, at an appropriate time, 
some of the results for discussion here in this group.

Sincerely yours,


Vesselin Noninski 

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvnoninski cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / B Guthrie /  Muon-catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: zcbag@pitt.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Muon-catalyzed Fusion
Date: 16 Mar 1995 13:55:18 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD

In article <3k8jo5$2qv@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss) 
writes:



 <SNIP>


>
>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.

  I'm not sure if you are familiar with muon fusion, so I thought I would
  exhaust my knowledge of the phenomenon.  The idea is that a muon is
  substituted for the electron in a tritium atom.  Muons carry a single
  electronic charge and are 200 times heavier than an electron.  Because
  it is heavier than an electron, its orbit around the nucleus will be much
  closer to the nucleus.  Make a D-T (deuterium-tritium molecule), and the
  nuclei are sufficiently close that the electrostatic repulsion between the
  two nuclei can be overcome by the tunnelling effect.  The muon is not
  consumed by this reaction.

  A drawback is that the muon has a halflife of two microseconds, and the
  production of a muon costs the energy of about 300 to 400 fusion events.
  Steve Jones, working at the Idaho National Engineering Lab, tested the
  phenomenom and found that he could get about 170 fusions per muon, and others
  have suggested that it might be possible to obtain 300 to 1000 fusions
  per muon.

  Jones presented a paper entitled "Muon Catalyzed Fusion Revisited" at
  the April, 1985, meeting of the American Physical Society.

  My source for the above is "Access to Energy" June, 1985.

  Now you're just as smart as I am - sorry!


-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenzcbag cudfnB cudlnGuthrie cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / James Crotinger /  Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:10:06 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <1995Mar15.070611.3979@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:

   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."

Now Robert, let's be fair. The above is true, but you can't build 
ITER and TPX on that budget.

  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:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 /  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: 16 Mar 95 16:17:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Physicists I have talked to about biomass consistently find it
hard to believe that photosynthetic efficiciencies approaching 1%
are possible with energy crops, or that biomass resources could
help solve energy-demand problems.  The following from the March
1995 issue of _Physics Today_ will help clarify these issues.

S. Kartha (Princeton University) and P. Grimes (Westfield, NJ),
writing in the March 1995 issue of _Physics Today_:

     The potential biomass resource is vast.  Fast-growing trees
and perennial grasses can be grown for energy purposes on
dedicated farms in a manner inherently more environmentally
friendly than growing annual food crops.  Even though the overall
photosynthetic efficiency is low (for example, a "good" yield of
15 dry tonnes per hectare per year corresponds to an annual
average photosynthetic efficiency of just 0.5%), the overall
process of growing biomass, converting it to hydrogen and using
the hydrogen to power FCVs [Fuel Cell Vehicles] is relatively
energy-efficient.  This fuel cycle will support nearly 7 times as
many vehicle-kilometers of travel per hectare as does the current
commercial process of making ethanol from grain for use in ICVs
[Internal Combustion Vehicles].  

In fact, to run the entire expected worldwide fleet of one
billion cars in 2020 on biomass-derived hydrogen would require
only 60-70 million hectares of land.  This is just twice the
amount of cropland held out of production in the US today to keep
food prices up and to control erosion--both of which objectives
could be met by growing energy crops on these excess croplands
instead.

If the availability of land eventually limits the extent of
biofuels production, additional quantities of hydrogen could be
produced electrolytically from renewable power sources such as
wind or photovoltaic electricity.  Land requirements for these
renewable electrolytic sources would be tiny relative to the
requirements for biomass-derived hydrogen.  Even though the cost
of producing hydrogen electrolytically from renewable sources in
the future would probably be roughly twice the cost of hydrogen
derived from coal or biomass, the cost of electrolytic hydrogen
per mile of driving would still be comparable to the cost of
gasoline per mile for an ICV--the fuel would be no less
affordable, yet cause  no emissions of local pollutants or CO2.

References

1.  R.H. Williams, E.D. Larson, R.E. Katofsky, J. Chen, "Methanol
    and Hydrogen from Biomass for Transportation,"  report 288,  
    Princeton. U. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,   
    1995.

2.   R.H. Williams, in Industrial Ecology and global Change, R.H.
     Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhout, V. Thomas, eds., Cambridge
     U.P., Cambridge, UK (1994), p. 199.

3.   J. Ogden, J. Nitsch, in Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels
     and Electricity, T.B. Johansson, M. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, R.
     H. Williams, eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C. (1993), p.
     925.

4.   R.H. Williams, Technology Review, April 1994, p. 20.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "Aneutronic Energy" is *not*| IS SO with a terrific diff.  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Aneutronic Energy" is *not*| IS SO with a terrific diff.  
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:45:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

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

>In article <D52D1s.GKx@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>> Wrong!  it is a fission reaction just as well as a fusion reaction, 
>> if you insist on being "Reality Correct".  It is just that the fusion 
>> reaction comes first.  Then it fissions into multi-nuclei with no 
>> neutrons, (unlike heavy isotope fission).  Hydrogen isotope fusion 
>> reactions do NOT split into multi-nuclei. 

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

AND a particle, albeit with a decay time of 12+ years.  

Still?  I suppose, it could be considered as a transitional fuel,
since ONE of it's principal branches is beginning to show a
bit of sophistication.  Now Robert, remember, I was willing to
give a bit of latitude in use of the expression for fusion.  But
here you are trying to convey is a discrimminating viewpoint.
This is a sort of hair splitting if you will, which is the nature 
of what science does.  Subtle differences, can generate amazingly
different conceptual understandings.  So this may not be so trivial   
as you suppose.  

>The fact is, almost all reactions known as fusion reactions 
>consist of a fusion followed by some sort of fission.  This doesn't

(some sort of fission) ?? ?????    What?????

I think that if an fission results in elements, but without an 
"afterbirth" (non viable nuclei) (neutron for example then it's
likely associated with an aneutronic reaction by definitions??).  

>make *any* of them "aneutronic energy".  They're all just fusion
>reactions.  The subsequent fission is generally considered 

>part of the process.  You know this as well as I do, and I
>still say that you're just *inventing* "aneutronic energy" without
>a valid reason.

The driving reason is political.  The logical reason is shifted 
or noticeably different character of reaction behavior and 
resultant effects. 

>> So at the light end we have fusion; a bit heavier -- aneutronic 
>> reactions; and at the heavy end -- fission.

>Sorry Paul.  The statement above is just plain false.  There are
>any number of reactions between intermediate-weight nuclei
>which are not aneutronic.  They are, however, considered to
>be fusion reactions.  "Aneutronic" is just an adjective applied
>to a particular *fusion* (or fission, I suppose) reaction 
>which doesn't release neutrons.  

Exactly! Step back and look at the forest.  Let some light in ..
 Great! you are making conceptual progress...  Hurrah! 

>For instance, the 
>proton-proton chain in the sun is aneutronic, yet in sum it
>is nothing more than 4p +> He4.  This is "aneutronic energy"
>from the lightest elements in existence!  

Strange! Fusion you mean.  I think that your logic and time
precision is getting foggy.  Aren't you leaving out a bit of 
bearing detail here?? 

Would you next cite the fissioning 4neutron clump I've read  --
proposed in some cold fusion rag, as an example of fission of 
light elements (0 Atomic number).  A neutron is a 0 "Zee" nuclei 
to you? isn't it Robert??  I mean we don't want to discrimminate 
between particles of fusion and resulting nuclei  .. .. do we???  

Now, if you consider that neutron are O atomic number elements, 
then you are correct that fusion and aneutronic energy are 
essentially the same thing.  It depends on how you see this very 
reactive particle and this determines if the validity of the 
premise (fusion=aneutronic) is acceptable.  

What would be nice is to have a good reaction (good energy) and 
then bad forms of energy that produce these troublesome little
buggers called neutrons.   Why??? 

So that Then people like me can leave the lot of the fusion (bad 
quarrelsome cold/hot interactive types behind and not be tagged 
with the garbage that has been conjured up and used to totally 
decimate the credibility of fusion energy (cold or "hot).  

So "fusion energy" is No more an invented definition than aneutronic 
energy.  This is obvious usage, thus "same" is rendered "uninventable". 

> .. . This idea that
>aneutronic energy comes in between fusion and fission 
>doesn't seem to be anything more than a baseless fantasy
>of yours.
 
Just a thought Robert, sorry you didn't get catch the tide. 
It also relates to the stability of the species formed. Elements
tend to be more stable (lower potential energy= mass/nucleon).  

Note that fusion product "Tritium" decays to ^3He.  

>Discrimination has nothing to do with it.  You could also 
>say that the proton "fissions" the B11.  You can even call the
>reaction "aneutronic."  It all depends on how you look at it.

It's all historical precedent Robert, protons aren't considered
in that manner (at least not in a Maxwellian plasma).  Perhaps you 
are on to something when considering beam machine fusion or one
concept such as MIGMA avocated by Maglich.   Love it! 

So did I detect a crack of light which doth prickle your imagination?? 

>But there's no way on earth you can invent a reaction that isn't
>some combination of fission and/or fusion.  

I claim that if it doesn't split into elements only, but includes 
"fragments" which can not pass as a nuclei, then it's not aneutronic 
hybrid fusion-fission.  So I suppose you could call one trivial 
"combination" fusion 1 ==  fission 0 as "pure fusion".  You must be 
a pure fellow in that case Robert. 

>Like I said before:
>> >So is D+3He (which is not really "aneutronic", just reduced in 
>> >neutrons relative to D-T).  This idea that you can invent some
>entirely 
Just massively reduced?.. in quantity? YES!  in energy per neutron?
                                         Y E S !!

>> >new thing called "aneutronic energy" which is independent of either 
>> >fusion or fission just doesn't make physical or semantic sense.
 
>> I didn't say it was independent.. in fact it's a combination!

>You claimed fusion and fission are dirty, aneutronic is clean.
>That's the same thing as claiming aneutronic is neither fission nor
>fusion, but some independent sort of reaction.  

What's (-1) * (-1)  ... I mean it's mathematical!

It just conpensates between the two inverse operations to balance 
out the instabilities which results in nice clean fragmentation.  
In the end, since it does both without neutrons then it is rather 
something unique.  

>You can't claim
>fusion or fission are dirty; it all depends on the type of reaction.
>You can't claim "aneutronic energy" is some "third type" of reaction,
>because it's not.

I can claim anything my mind comprehends, Robert. Did the Constitution
change... is physics rabidly PC??  what are you talking about?  
GSP thought police policy being formed here??    
                                   (GSP = Grad Student Police)

>So what's the definition please?  I say aneutronic reactions are
>either fission or fusion reactions which release no neutrons.  

Aneutronics include both fusion and fusion reactions which fragment 
into (stable) elements.  That should tighten things up a bit.   

None of that hot Tritium stuff!          :-)

>Aneutronic reactions are *not* something other than fission or fusion.

If it is unique with respect to the others in action and outcome, 
then it seems something *other* to me.  

>> I'm just describing what already exists and was named by another 
>> (Maglich?? or Miley?? or Dawson??).  The fact that I just happen to 

>I never said you invented "aneutronic reactions."  I said you
>invented "aneutronic energy" 

Robert .. that's a bit obvious .. invented?? come on now, that's
very strong.  How about constructed, or spoke ... or wrote, I
mean synthesizing word phrases isn't exactly a black art.  

> ..     .. .  .       ..     and then claimed it was something
>distinct from fission or fusion.  That's simply wrong.  Try again.
>Go consult the "aneutronic" discussion in the FAQ or the Glossary,
>if you think these features haven't been brought to my attention.
>Get a clue.

Huh!  I thought you masterminded and edited he FAQ,  .. .a bit like 
being asked to read the fox's manual for guarding the hen house!  
BTW  -- If I invented the phase then I get to define it (assign it).  

So Robert, the FAQ is a great start.   I mean the percentage of
the FAQ that relates to tokamak is Mind Wrenching.  
 
>> > This can be obtained
>> >via email, ftp, or WWW; see the Intro posting (Section 0 Part 1)
>> >for more details.  The principal problem is that the D-3He and
>> >p-11B fuels require *much* *much* more stringent plasma 
>> >conditions - higher temperatures and better confinement.
 
>> Give me a break.  DT requires the far more stringent conditions due
>> to it's radioactivity. 

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

First of all, low temps make for a crappy plasma.  
High temps a well behaved one.  

Radiation is a *plasma* condition.  It must be shielded for.  
Guess how much dough goes into the tritium diffusion recovery 
stacks.  So give me a break.  With just that dough we would
have Commercially burned. 

So for us, temperture and density regimes for p-^11B now look 
almost trivial. So Who would bother to jeopardize the countryside 
of New Jersey, to burn that trituim crap?  Ohhh! you have game 
rules that only a low pressure, modestly heatable device can be
used, such as the tokamak???   Well maybe that's your problem,  
"Rush to Judgment here, Robert??" .. . and now you think you 
are stuck with it.  Your not, Congress can help you find that 
out, and in fact, get you out.  

>And if you think the other fuels have less stringent radiation
>engineering conditions, you're just kidding yourself.  D-3He still
>has quintillions of neutrons per second that have to be dealt 
>with.  

Most all of then energy is available for direct electric power
generation and the few neutrons released will be great as a natural 
diagnostic for the first Commercial output pulses.  But I think you 
are right for the real service, and that's why p^11B is the way to 
go.   

>   .  .I realize the machines you work with don't generally make 
>good enough plasmas for significant amounts of fusion to occur, 
>but I just spent a day watching neutron emission signals from 
>TFTR while it was running D-3He, and there were still 10^15 neutrons
>per second coming out.  (From D-D fusion, mostly.)

Hmmmm! was that from one cc .. or  are are we speaking of a cubic 
meter, .. Certainly not the whole machine???   GAsp!  Bummer.  :-( 

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

Huh???? 15 MeV neutrons .. you are going to what????  cool through
the embedded field  ????   Who wants it.  Did you know that CA is
loaded with wagons of Borax.  There is plenty of the stuff all over 
our solar system. .  and as for protium.   Well!.  my, my... I could
personally put out enough each day to run a fair chunk of the upper 
east coast (I think).     

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

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

The improved confinement comes with compression heating dear 
friend, and the neutrons, are quite tame by comparison to those 
vicious 15 MeV ones you are handling and consider the vastly 
larger numbers of them you MUST handle, and the far larger volume 
of machine they will encounter and activate..  my o' my...  lands 
sake --  you better think about that before you go light up half of
New Jersey.   

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

>Not really.  Plasmas are plasmas, and it's always easier to 
>burn D-T.  

Wanna bet??  Try burning it with a mob of demonstrators banging
on your door screaming to have your facility shutdown because of 
its huge radioactive fuel inventory, and yet you .  haven't even
turned on the real radiation monster.  

>> >The D-T campaigns on JET and TFTR have shown that fusion

>  ... .    Or have you rewritten the laws of physics as well
>as the meaning of "aneutronic reaction"?  

I wouldn't say that adiabatic compression heating isn't a well
founded physics concept.  It's just that when you are stuck with
a white elephant that has no capacity to utilize it, then
what can you do but suck your thumb and hope Congress continues
to by pass your project as a candidate for a grand pork .. . 
                                  Chop!

                                   :-(
 
>> >can crawl, and hopefully it will be able to walk soon, but barring
>> >a few incredible developments (which should be sought for by
>> >more reliable funding of advanced-concepts research), Olympic 
>> >sprinting is still in the distant future.
 
>> Want to bet?   I think I have found some one to crush our balls. 

>Who?  Why would you want someone to crush your balls?  :)

They can squeeze harder then we can, and half way measures
just don't compare.  
 
>> Campaigns ... another word borrowed from politics.  

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

I love it..  Songs of solders (in lock step) marching up the 
road and back down again??  At PPPL I understand some Campaign 
are marching one direction another the quite exactly the opposite 
way, and they just don't bother to meet.  So .. I guess that's 
progress.  
>***************************
>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!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.16 / Jim Buell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell)
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 95 14:32:32 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site

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

>Kennel wrote:

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

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

[stuff deleted]

>On page 267 he wrote:

>     But stars with less than this mass will not explode.  These more sedate
>  stars will blow off only their outer layers--pure helium--not their inner
>  cores, where the heavier elements are trapped.  As these medium-sized
>  stars, four to ten times bigger than the sun, form in the dense, inner
>  regions of the galaxy, the shock wave will spread through the entire
>  thickness of the galaxy.  Consequently, helium production will far outweigh
>  that of oxygen and carbon.

You seem to be claiming that intermediate mass stars of zero
metallicity will produce only helium. I don't see how you can do this
without making the models unphysical. The triple alpha process easily
produces carbon. During the helium shell flashes both carbon and
helium are dredged to the surface of the star and then ejected into
the ISM by the stellar wind. 

Also, I can't imagine a star formation model which produces only
intermediate mass stars and no high mass stars. It kinda sounds like
magic.  

>     This model predicts the amounts of helium, carbon, and oxygen that a
>  variety of galaxies will produce.  The results are in close agreement with
>  observation--almost any galaxy would produce about 22 percent helium, 1
>  percent oxygen, and .5 percent carbon.  It is only after all these stars
>  have burned that density will rise sufficiently for still lighter, longer-
>  lived, and dimmer stars like our sun to form (Fig. 6.16).

This statement is silly. 1 precent oxygen and .5 precent carbon by
mass are the approximate solar abundances of these elements by mass!
However the sun has 28% helium by mass. I don't agree with the
assesment that this agrees with observations. How do you explain HII
regions with 24% helium and only trace metals.

>     Certain rare light isotopes--deuterium, lithium, and boron--cannot have
>  been produced in this way, for they burn too easily in stars.  But the
>  cosmic rays generated by early stars, colliding with the background plasma,
>  will generate these rare substances in the correct amounts as well. (This
>  was an idea that scientists such as Jean Adouze in France had independently
>  been arguing for.)  There is simply no need for a Big Bang to produce any
>  of these elements.

It's called cosmic ray spallation. However cosmic rays have to collide
with carbon and heavier elements to produce lithium. If you have only
helium in the ISM, how do you produce lithium. I'm also curious, by
what process do you make deuterium, I've never heard of one involving
cosmic rays.

Jim Buell
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbuell cudfnJim cudlnBuell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / change ini /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: Not configured (change c:/user/winvn/winvn.ini)
(Not configured (change c:/user/winvn/winvn.ini))
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 17 Mar 1995 11:36:00 GMT
Organization: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

In article <3k2jsg$cue@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss) says:
>
>KA--
>
>I enjoyed reading your response...it's nice to get one that's professional
>and not directed at slamming my psyche, and you did just that--gave me an
>educated, well-thought out response.  I sincerely thank you for that.  You
>also educated me a little better on what cold fusion is...you're dead on
>when I was thinking of the electrochemical cell experiments and their
>failure...the muon experiment in Physics I hadn't heard of yet.  That's
>great!  As far as the energies I was talking about, I should have
>clarified my use of the word as net energies...I do understand that hot
>fusion gives up energy, I just know that we put more in than we get
>out...I believe the Princeton reactor is near 10 million kilowats now for
>output...but they're putting in 25 million, so they're still quite a ways
>away.  My source for that was some newspaper article, so it may be a
>little off...I think it was in the Huntsville Times, but I'm not sure. 
>Maybe I read it in a magazine...I'm sorry I can't remember.  Anyway, thanx
>for the tips!
>



	cold fusion exists!!!!
	I thought it was widely known as an experiment that lead
	to this theory. But the experiment was misjudged.
	There were outer factors who gave those results and
	the hole theory is one big joke.
	They are still wondering how those researchers where so
	easily mislead.


	If you have solid proof it does exsist, let me know






					Geert
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnchange cudlnini cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 17 Mar 1995 12:20:13 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Ba272dD.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>No chemical process can get above 18 eV/atom.

How do you know this?
 
>I don't mind "skeptical" comments, but why on earth can't you people read the
>literature?!? What is the matter with you, anyway?

Have you read *any* of the relevant literature on nuclear physics?  If you
had, you might understand that the physicists' objection to deuterium
fusion without energetic products is at least as well-grounded as your
claim that no chemical process can get above 18 eV/atom.  What is the
matter with you, anyway?  (Besides, of course, your demonstrated inability
to do simple mathematics and your complete ignorance of the concept of
error analysis.)
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.18 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 01:46:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
[snip]
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Decomposing D2O2 does however liberate extra oxygen which I believe 
would not always go unnoticed.

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  Matej /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: matej.pavsic@ijs.si (Matej Pav{i~)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 17 Mar 95 12:46:21 GMT
Organization: J. Stefan Institute, Lj, Slovenia

In article <3k1uga$oqn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
> In <3k1o91$3t7@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) 
> writes: 
> 
>>Unfortunately, 
>>until something concrete is uncovered in CF, it will continue to be 
>>regarded as just another pathological science by most reasonable 
>>observers.  Only when the rhetoric, wishful thinking and propaganda of 
>>CF enthusiasts is replaced with authenticated scientific discovery will 
>>this status change. 
> 
> At least you left room to be convinced. We need skeptics as well as 
> optimists---contructively.
> -AK- 
> 
> 

According to the above criterium all research is "pathological"
until it gives concrete results. Every researcher is following
a certain kind of a "wishful thinking" when he is working hard
to test his hypotheses and expectations (even when working
within a respectable and well reccognized discipline). The distance
of research from the already well established facts cannot be
decisive in determining which research is pathological and which is
not, it can be only measure how much a research is pathological
(zero pathological research = no research at all, since everything
clear; infinitely pathological research = the extreme in fantasy,
philosophy, meditation, theology, etc).

Or it is better to admit that, since there is no clear-cut borderline
between good research and a pathological one, every kind of research
(in the broadest sense of the word) has a worth of its own,
provided that it is practiced by inteligent, educated, trained, dedicated,
honest, enthusiastic people. Skepticism is of course a very sensible
attitude (especially towards an unusual research) before some concrete
results are obtained, but without emotional impatient use the words
such as "pathological".

So, though I am not an enthusiast in cold fusion, I would never
proclaim the protagonist of CF as performing a pathological research
(and if they find conclusive results promote a posteriori their
research a very good one).
Eventually I would disagree with the kind of their propaganda (press
conferences, premature publications, etc). But this has nothing
to do with the intrinsic value of their research. This we will
get to know only with time. Many people are doing all sorts of
research, and only very few succed in getting valuable results;
but without the numerous "unsuccesful" majority, the succesful
minority would be even much much smaller.

Matej Pavsic
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpavsic cudlnMatej cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Solar -VRS- Fusion: LUZ Corp.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar -VRS- Fusion: LUZ Corp.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 08:56:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In a message which has not shown up here, hughl@news.an.hp.com (Hugh
Lippincott) writes:
 
     "Solar cells output electricity that must be: transformed to useable
     voltages and  transmitted to where it is used IMMEDIATELY  . . . eg how
     do we use solar energy at midnight? . . . biomass is chemically STORED
     energy  it must be converted to the appropriate form of useful energy
     . . . The cost of solar electricity must include allowance for storage
     or replacement power for when solar cannot be used."
 
That's true! It is a big fat minus for solar electricity. Mind you, I don't
think solar anything has any future. I am well aware of these problems you
raise. But there is an elegant compromise that ameliorates these problems. The
SEGS solar thermal plants built by LUZ corporation in California were
engineering masterpieces. A solar thermal approach smooths out problems caused
by intermittent sunlight (clouds). Extensive storage is not needed, the hot
water acts as a temporary energy storage medium; power does not cut off
abruptly during temporary cloud cover. An auxiliary natural gas burner is used
to augment the heat during very cloudy days and winter. It is extraordinarily
efficient. In general, solar electric systems in many hot weather locations
produce the most electricity just when demand peaks because of air
conditioning, so it balances out nicely.
 
Unfortunately, LUZ corporation went bankrupt. This was because fossil fuel
prices fell, and because the fossil fuel producers had an unfair tax advantage
over LUZ. They are allowed a depletion allowance on their taxes, because the
oil resources they tap are gradually used up, whereas the sun will not deplete
any time soon. In essence, LUZ was punished by the IRS for tapping a source of
energy that never runs out.
 
The engineering details are described in depth in: P. De Laquil et al.,
"Solar-Thermal Electric Technology," Renewable Energy (Island Press), p. 213 -
295.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Lawrence Mead /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 17 Mar 1995 15:30:00 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

Akira Kawasaki (aki@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 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 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about the ratio of *repeatable results* confirmed/ public dollars?

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

--

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) | ESCHEW OBFUSCATION !
Associate Professor of Physics             | ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlrmead cudfnLawrence cudlnMead cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research, etc...
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.fusion.research, etc...
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 16:51:16 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Robert F. Heeter wrote:

[...] 
> 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.
> 

Me, too. I would certainly post all biblio updates there. Remember to
vote. Voting ought to start any day now, it's been the customary 21 days
by now, I think.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / John Cobb /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement (Hot) Fusion Status?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 10:34:04 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3k7jkn$bnn@ptdcs5.al.intel.com>,
Jeff Greason <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
>If any serious fusion workers still read this white noise generator...
>
>Can you enlighten us on the status of electrostatic confinement
>fusion?  This is a scheme that Bob Hirsch worked on back in the 60's,
>and Bob Forward had published some papers on quite recently.  It
>sometimes goes under the acronym QED.

I'll try. A very good friend and mentor of mine has spent/is spending
some time working on experiments and theory about this subject. However,
I have not kept up as much as I would like. So caveat emptor.


>So, we've got a concept, explored by some knowledgeable people,
>which seems quite promising -- it it going somewhere?  If not,
>why not (i.e., are the obstacles technical or financial).

I get the impression that it is both. Present experiments are limited
by the maximum electron gun current and the can't afford bigger guns
now. However one barrier to getting bigger guns is that there are
some questions about ultimate power plant feasibility. I'm in no
position to expound these arguments or defend them (ignorance on my
part) but the inkling I remember talks about paerformance barriers
that kick in at some power level and may not be surmountable. The
question is do they kick in below or above the power plant feasilibity
threshold. One alternative that proponents of these systems look at
is the fact that they are relatively small and compact and might be
very useful as a compact neutron source (even for Q < 1). That is
they would be a net power consumer, but would be a prodigous neutron
producer. This sort of thing would be useful for at least 2 reasons.
First, the small size and hize production rate means that it is a 
good candidate for high flux neutron source. In that capacity it
could be used for materials testing. The point is that for a given
level of neutron production, small source size is better because it
means that the material to be tested can be moved closer to the source
and get neutrons from a larger source solild angle.

The second use is that such a neutron source would be very useful
in anti-terrorist applications where neutron sources can be used to
detect nitrogen-rich compounds and fissile material. In such an application,
small physical size is clearly better.

>...Introduction (for those who've never heard of this before)
>(Quick, inexpert summary of QED below, as I understand it).
>
>Purely electrostatic scheme:
>   Uses something like a spherical vacuum tube: the inner
>grid is maintained at a very negative potential with respect
>to the outer grid.  Ionized fusion fuels are introduced into
>the interior -- these are positive ions.  They are confined
>by the positive potential of the outer grid.
>   Limit here is confinement time problems due to interactions
>with the inner grid (although it seems to me that very modest
>magnetic fields could deflect incoming ions from grid collisions).

Another engineering limit is that while a grid may repel ions
it will attract electrons (or vica-versa). The problem is that then
the grids themselves get hit with fairly high energy particles. This
can cause a great deal of grid heating and physical or chemical sputtering.
One can also get into a mode where enormous self-sputtering can lead to
a near grid, high density plasma that will eat up the grid quickly. There
are a lot of tricks to deal with this, but it is basically a really big
problem with this concept. It may not have a solution.

One alternative that has come out of it is the notion of a Penning fusion
system. There one takes a single component plasma and confines it
electrostatically in the axial direction and uses magnetic confinement from 
simple E X B motion to confine it radially. Now nothing hits the grids because
there is only one component and it is kept away from the walls. There are
also some tricks to get around the Brillioun density limit, at least for
short periods of time. An experiment has been funded at Los Alamos to
study this possibility. I think it is a really neat idea.

From a plasma physics point of view, there is one really neat trick about
both the Penning system and the IEC (or QED as you call it) system. The
energy confinement time should be LONGER than the particle confinement
time. Now this is very surprising. In normal MFE schemes, energy and particles
are lost on transport time scales as collisions allow cross-field diffusion.
In these schemes energy is lost in 2 ways. First if a particle leaves, it
takes its energy with it. Second, a particle can be confined, but there
is some thermal conductivity (classical, neo-classical, turbulent, whatever)
that is also an energy loss channel. Therefore, energy is lost AT LEAST as
fast as particles, and maybe more so. However, Penning and IEC schemes use
a neat trick. If a charged particle escapes, it must climb out of a potential
well (not considering C-X reactions here, only Coulomb scaterring). Thus 
even if the particle is lost, it leaves with very little kinetic energy.
So the energy confinement time is much better than the particle confinement
time. Neat huh?

In general, the size of these devices are hoped to be much smaller than
tokamak-size power plants. But these schemes have not been explored in
nearly as much detail so there is a lot more question about it ultimate
success.

In the highly charged political language that has seemed to dominate s.p.f
lately, I would say the conventional wisdom is that a Tokamak (like ITER
or DEMO) has a very high degree of certainty of igniting and burning a
DT plasma, but it will be expensive, long-term and messy, and in the end
may not lead directly to anything economically viable. On the other hand,
IEC and Penning systems hope to be small, cheap, and modular, but there just
is not yet enough information to say with any certainty at all that they
will even work.

That is, Tokamaks work, but they seem ugly (at least in current designs)
but these ideas are very beuatiful, it is just that they may not work.

So which basket do we put our eggs in? Why not both? 

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / 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: 17 Mar 1995 10:57:49 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3kb3mu$7sb@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <1995Mar16.210559.2233@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick  
>Jackson) writes:
>> Robert F. Heeter comments about the estimated costs of various fusion
>> power devices:
>> >ITER is a somewhat pathological case because of the fact that it's an
>> >international project on an unprecendented scale; I think an actual
>> >reactor built by a single country wouldn't be quite so bad.
>> 
>> I'm curious as to just *why* a tokomak or similar system would cost a
>> whole lot.  Assuming that development is done and we have a set of plans,
>> what are the expensive items?  Is it labor intensive to build large
>> assemblies to great precision? 
>
>Yes, and 
>
>> I don't believe that extremely exotic
>> material are needed?  How would it compare to, say, building a prototype
>> airliner?
>
>
>Exotic material are needed, namely superconducting magnetics and 
>possibly carbon composite tiles, etc.
>
>Also, they need robotic remote maintainace, and operating costs
>are around ~100M/year as well.
>

And the list goes on.

Structural components will have to be made out of special materials. They
will have to be very pure chemically, because they will be subject to
induced radioactivity from neutrons. So you must make sure your girders
are constructed of material that will either not capture neutrons, or if they
do will not lead to long term rad-waste. While such materials are supposed
to exist, they must be very pure, because if they have 0.1 % impurity with
another element that is very susceptible to activiation, then this may
create a waste problem. In addition, these materials must be very strong
per unit mass, because their size must be small to allow the blanket to cover
most everything. However, they must also be thermally stable because the 
temperatures will go from ambient to severl hundred C between downtime and
peak power. They also must withstand neutron embrittlement as well. So this
is a real macho, meat-n-potatoes materials/metallurgy problem. Maybe some
veterans of the fission power program will comment can comment on this
issue.

Another big cost is the cooling blanket and tritium breeding system. I
don't know much about it, except that every neutron is sacred or else
one must use neutron multipliers. to go along with this is a whole production/
processing stream to eventually extract tritium from the lithium.

Also, to the extenr that these beasties rely on a large amount of external
neutral beam heating, they will be expensive. Each megawatt of heating power
or current drive power delivered by the beams costs a great deal. So
do RF heating antennas.

However, when I looked at the numbers last time, the way people who
contract these big projects do the figuring is they have a cost per unit
mass and size. So if you need a 400,000 sg. ft. plant it will cost 2 X
as much as a 200,000 sq. ft. plant. So it seems that the major costs
are concrete and bulldozers. I always found that a curious conclusion, but
these guys are the professionals. I tend to believe them from looking at
the defunct SSC. A lot of what was spent under the rubric of High Energy
Physics was going to digging a hole nd pouring concrete into it. The 
sophisticated magnetics were a smaller cost.


IMO, a fusion power plant will be "hi-tech" in the same sense as a
fission plant or a NASA space project. It will not be like a gas-fired
or coal-fired power plant which, although it uses a lot of technology,
it doesn't have to deal with many different, but tangled technological
problems simultaneously.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Brendan Niemira /  GG report?
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG report?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995  12:19 est
Organization: Michigan State University

Tom Droege's Griggs trip report is supposed to come out later today [March 17,
St. Patrick's Day].
May I safely presume that if my verdammnt news system deletes Tom D.'s GG
report over the weekend [before I get a chance to see it on Monday], someone
will have a copy I could get via e.mail?  Or from Tom directly?
.............

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 17:07:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) writes:
: But note that the platinum disk has to be replaced every couple of 
: months, because it becomes ineffective (presumably because it has 
: sucked up as much hydrogen as it wants from a 3% peroxide solution).


Sorry, but your presumption doesn't seem energetically favorable.

Peroxide is H2O2.  If H2 is flowing into the Pt, that must mean O2 is
being left behind, i.e. H2O2 ==> H2 + O2.

However, it *takes* energy to break H2O2 into H2 and O2.  In fact,
it takes about 187,700 Joules per mole of H2O2 to accomplish the
dissociation.

Rather, when H2O2 decomposes into H2O and O2 (2(H2O) ==> H2O + O2)
there is *no* free H2 released -- only the excess O2.  When H2O2
decomposes thusly, it releases 197,000 Joules per mole (of starting
material.)

: So there is no reason to expect H2O2 to decompose in the presence of
: fully loaded Pt.

How does the Pt uptake *any* H or H2 under this supposedly exothermic
reaction in which no free H or H2 is made available?

: Many contact-lens wearers could have told you that without the experiment.

It was exactly a contact-lens wearer who first put us onto this experiment
a couple of years ago.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Tom Droege Seriously?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 17:10:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Rather, when H2O2 decomposes into H2O and O2 (2(H2O) ==> H2O + O2)

oops,  that should be  2(H2O2) ==> 2(H2O) + O2

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Harry Conover /  Re: Correction on Bockris
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction on Bockris
Date: 17 Mar 1995 17:32:15 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Cheap shot, Eugene!  This reveals more about the character of the poster 
than his victim. 

                               Harry C.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:

:         "Humphrey cancelled the appearance scheduled at Wendy's Restaurant on 
: Loudon Road. His aides said it had nothing to do with Green's conviction in 
: 1974 on income tax fraud.


: Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
: Cold Fusion Technology
: P.O. Box 2816
: Concord, NH 03302-2816

: Fax:   603-224-5975
: Phone: 603-228-4516

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  Why so neutronphobic?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why so neutronphobic?
Subject: Why so neutronphobic?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 18:19:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9503171642.AA43542@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Why so neutronphobic?
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

 = I sense that neutrons are getting a bad rap in this news group.  I think that
 =is wrong.  More than half the mass of ordinary matter on earth is in the
 =form of neutrons, and neutrons should be given credit for all the good they
 =do for us.  The commercial potential for a good source of neutrons is clearly
 =being underestimated by those who would turn CF's lack of neutron production
 =into an assest.

  Good point.

 =As I see it, had the original Pons and Fleischmann experiments produced
 =neutrons at the level commensurate with the claimed excesss heat there
 =would already be several commercial ventures making use of the new
 =technology. 

Good point.  But there would be less interest in those seeking aneutronic
or neutronpenic sources.

 = It is obvious that a source of a few tens of watts of low-grade
 =energy isn't very exciting commercially speaking.  However, a source of
 =10^12 neutrons per second is easily worth many millions of dollars.  Making
 =CF neutron-free is clearly not such a good idea.

Come on, Dick,
With that logic, pure clean refreshing water is not a good idea either when
it can be filled with toxins, organics, organometallics, radioactive substances,
and pollutants that might actually be worth several millions of dollars.
Actually, they have worth only if removed and put in the right place at the 
right time.  Have you observed the impact of exogenous neutron beams 
upon humans?    Location.  Location. Location.

  Best wishes.     
             Mitchell





cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Dave Whitman /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: dwhitman@rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
aterials,sci.energy
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:07:32 GMT
Organization: Rohm & Haas Co.

In article <3k8jo5$2qv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ericpbliss@aol.com
(EricPBliss) wrote:

> 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. 

I haven't followed the research in this area for several years, but Linus
Pauling gave a profoundly compelling lecture at one of the Materials
Research Society meetings which debunked the existing evidence at a time
when everyone really WANTED to believe.

Among his arguments were that sloppy calorimetry allowed researchers to
fool themselves into ignoring some well-known chemistry.  At the time, all
the published work had a long lag time before any heat release was seen,
during which the cell seemed idle.  People argued that the lag time was
the cell getting "conditioned".  Thermal data during the lag period was
considered "uninteresting", and never seemed to show up in the published
data.

It is well known that hydrogen and deuterium endothermically dissolve at
high concentration in palladium and other metals.  Pauling pointed out
that the known deltaH available from desorbing D2 from Pd was more than
enough to explain the published "excess heat" if one ignored a long slow
endothermic period to load the gas into the Pd...and no one ever published
data about the "lag time".

Pauling had other arguments that I just can't remember.  The sum total of
them was pretty devastating - a lot of true believers (myself included)
left the meeting with a healthy dose of skepticism.  I read the literature
for perhaps another year, but every paper that came out could be explained
away using arguments from Dr. Pauling's talk.  Eventually, I stopped
bothering to read CF articles.  

There is a long history of "pathological science", where a paper causes a
flurry of research excitment, but then just seems to peter out after
people calm down and look more critically at the data.  Polywater is
perhaps the classic example, but pathological science was old even before
the polywater hysteria.  There's a great article about some older examples
in Physics Today, Oct. 1989 p36, transcribed from a recording of a 1953
lecture by Irving Langmuir.  It turns out that the published work on cold
fusion perfectly fits Langmuir's observations of common features of
historic examples of pathological science.

The scientific process really DOES work.  I can remember times when cold
fusion and high temperature superconductivity seemed equally strange,
wonderful and unlikely.   Both were immediately pounced on by multiple
researchers to test these "impossible" observations.  Both effects were
dogged by irreproducability, and had suspiscious gaps in initially
published procedures.  

HTS turned out to be amazingly, wonderfully real.   CF doesn't seem to
be.  Some diehards will continue to beat the concept to death, citing and
peer reviewing each other in little enclave journals largely ignored by
the scientific mainstream.  They may even be right, but I'm not holding my
breath or adding their stuff to my already over-full journal stack. YMMV.

-- 
dave whitman             "The opinions expressed are those of the 
dwhitman@rohmhaas.com     author, and not Rohm and Haas Company."
                          
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendwhitman cudfnDave cudlnWhitman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:48:01 GMT
Organization: fermilab

    Please be sure to read comments by Jim Griggs in part 5

    Part 1 of 5

    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

    Thomas F. Droege                                   13 March 1995

    A trip was made to Hydro Dynamics Inc., Rome, GA on 8 March 1995 to
    study a possible over unity device developed there by Jim Griggs.

    PREPARATION

    I prepared for the visit by reading all the various comments on
    sci.physics.fusion and by making a list of the major items that I
    wanted to investigate.  I arrived with a clip board on which I had
    mostly blank pages with headings of my major items.  Note, the items
    may not make sense now, but they are the ones on my clip board along
    with my ideas about what I wanted to see.  As you will see they were
    not all answered.  They were not even all asked.  These included:

    1)History

    How did they get into this work?  What led them to suspect the device
    was over unity and to test for it?

    2)Set Up

    Is the test equipment of sufficient quality to make the claimed
    measurements?

    3)Control Experiment

    Have they done a control experiment(s)?

    4)Calibration

    Have they done a convincing calibration on each of their measuring
    devices?

    5)Log Book Procedure

    Have they kept a good log book?  Can I look at the log book entries and
    trace their thinking through experiment, analysis of results, and re-
    experiment to confirm the results?  Does the log book time sequence
    make sense?  Do they have curves for all their calibration experiments?
    Do the calibrations support the conclusions?

    6)Redundancy

    Is there enough redundancy built into the experiment so that it is not
    dependent on any one device or type of device?

    7)Hypothesis

    When they do an experiment, do they set out to measure a specific thing
    that will confirm or deny their idea of what is happening?

    8)Error Study Procedure

    How well do they study their errors?

    9)Ultrasonic Effects

    Have they considered what all that ultrasonic energy might do to the
    various transducers involved?

    10)Experiment or is it Anecdotal?

    Are they doing experiments or do they just have anecdotal evidence?

    11)Is Experiment Designed to find Errors?

    Have they designed experiments to find errors in other experiments?

    12)Do They Understand the Significance of their Claim?

    Do they understand how much science has been done in this area?

    13)Theory Development

    Have they developed a theory as to what might be going on?

    14)Paper Structure

    Is their paper structured like a normal scientific paper?

    15)Literature Study

    Have they studied the literature in this area?

    As you can see, a lot of information to cover.  I recognize that I no
    longer have great stamina, so I did the best I could during the 4 hour
    visit.  By the end I was pretty tired.  I would not hold up as a OJ
    lawyer.  I always was amazed by Haldeman and Erlichman of the Nixon
    administration.  How could they remember so much and in such detail?  I
    never remember much of anything, and very little detail.

    End of part 1

    Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Visit Report Part 4 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Report Part 4 of 5
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:56:18 GMT
Organization: fermilab

    Part 4 of 5

    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

    DISCUSSION

    A)The Log Book Problem

    I arrived really wanting to look at a log book.  Without a log book, I
    have no idea how they think or work.  It would not have had to be
    complete or in great detail.  But I wanted to sit with them and look at
    a page and to say "just what are you doing here".  I wanted to see how
    they thought and how their thinking progressed over the five years of
    work.  Sadly, I do not think they have progressed.  They are just
    drilling holes at different angles and at different spacings trying to
    optimize an effect that may or may not exist.

    B)The Missing Curves

    They do not seem to think in terms of plotting anything against
    anything.  I don't know how they grow their understanding without
    making such comparisons.  They also do not seem to have calibration
    curves on anything.  I did not ask, but I suspect that they take their
    calibration curves out of a thermocouple handbook.  If so, then a
    slight error in their thermocouple batch or ultrasonic energy changing
    the curve could explain everything.

    C)Absolute Accuracy of The Thermocouples

    They did not say anything about accuracy, or how the referenced their
    temperature readings back to a NIST standard.  There was a Radio Shack?
    dial thermometer though.  Actually in my experience, not all that bad a
    check.  But I did not see a curve of Radio Shack vs thermocouple.  If I
    had I would have given them credit.  But a claim of over unity is so
    astounding that heroic calibrations must be made.

    D)Feed Pump

    I did not ask and they did not tell me that they take into account the
    energy provided by the feed pump.  For the hot water experiment this
    could be significant, and could easily account for the excess heat
    indicated.

    E)Blank Rotor Experiment

    I was pleased to see that they had done an experiment with a blank
    rotor (no holes to generate ultrasonic energy).  The less than unity
    results that this test indicates are encouraging but are not
    conclusive.  Such an experiment will have a small temperature rise with
    full flow, or low input energy at restricted flow to maintain the
    temperature rise.  It was not clear to me which experiment was run.  If
    the temperature rise is not matched, then it is a delta t experiment
    and dependent on the thermocouple calibration.  If the flow is not
    matched, then the losses will dominate and there will be low accuracy.

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Griggs should pursue a path designed to produce a convincing
    presentation to the scientific community.  This section makes
    recommendations as to the procedure to be followed.

    The presentation made in the ICCF-4 paper, and the physical set up are
    not of a quality level that the scientific community can consider to be
    a serious disclosure of a claim of "over unity" energy production.  To
    make such a claim, a number of things need to be done.

    1)The Log Book

    They need to start keeping a log book.  This should show how each
    experiment is set up and should be full of calibration experiments.
    When the torque meter is blocked and the lever arm and weights
    attached, there should be data points entered in the log book.  Then
    derive an equation for the computer, compute residuals, etc.. Then
    there is some concept of the error involved in the measurements.

    2)Curves

    They need to start plotting results.  For a start, I would like to see
    the two power measuring devices plotted against each other.  Of course
    thermocouple curves.

    3)Error Limits

    Every experiment should be geared to describing the errors.  There
    should be error limits on everything.  We will be getting down to a
    real experiment when we are arguing about which errors are in
    quadrature.

    4)Killing the Positive Result

    When a positive result is found, every effort should be made to
    explain it in terms of error or known parameters.  Only after an
    exhaustive analysis of possible error sources is made should an over
    unity claim be made.

    5)The Paper

    Here is a sample outline for a paper.  The ICCF-4 paper does not follow
    such an outline.  It is just some stuff and a hint of an over unity
    result.

    i)Introduction
    ii)The Theory
    iii)The Test Hypothesis
    iv)Apparatus Description
    v)Calibration of Individual Measurement Components
    vi)Tests
    vii)Summary of Results
    viii)Discussion - Emphasis on possible error sources.
    ix)Conclusion

    6)Where To Publish

    Those claiming "over unity" devices usually find that the scientific
    community is tired of looking at them.  So it is hard to find a journal
    that will take a paper.  But Mr. Griggs has no such problem.  There is
    a "journal" ready and willing to publish his paper.  It is the journal
    sci.physics.fusion.  I can assure him that he will get a prompt and
    thorough reading.  Probably a more thorough reading than he would get
    in a big name journal.

    7)The Sales Pitch

    The sci.physics.fusion paper is really a sales pitch.  As much as we
    don't like to admit it, there is "marketing" going on in science.  To
    be believed, a result must be replicated.  Preferably in an entirely
    different configuration.  So the paper is really a sales pitch.  It
    needs to sell at least one other person to invest the time, effort, and
    money needed to duplicate the results.  It is up to the originator of
    a device to publish a paper that is so complete, so thorough in its
    analysis of error, and so compelling in the cleverness of the
    experiment that many will rush to replicate.

    8)The Necessity of Replication

    Nothing is believed in science without replication.  I tell you how to
    do it.  You do it.  Now there are two of us.  But some of your friends
    will know you as a careful experimenter and will be persuaded to
    follow.  Only when everyone knows someone that he trusts that has found
    a positive result is a positive result considered likely.

    CONCLUSION

    Griggs does not claim an over unity device.  He merely says that he has
    test results that indicate over unity operation.  He leaves it up to
    his visitors to view tests and to draw their own conclusions.

    I believe that the scientific community should withhold judgement until
    Griggs makes such a claim with a proper scientific presentation.

    Since Griggs does not make a scientific presentation that claims that
    his device is over unity, there is nothing to be considered.

    End of Part 4
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Visit Report Part 5 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Report Part 5 of 5
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:57:53 GMT
Organization: fermilab


    Part 5 of 5

    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP

    COMMENTS BY JIM GRIGGS

    The following comments were received from Jim Griggs according to our
    agreement.  I have typed these in by hand, and apologize in advance for
    any typos.  Some minor typos have been corrected during typing, however
    where I judged there was a possible interpretation of the statement, the
    exact wording and spelling was followed.  I appreciate that Jim did not
    have enough time to produce a polished document.  There are some
    differences in line length due to the editor used.

    Out of fairness, I will not reply to any of Griggs' comments here.  I take
    my shot, he takes his.  Later we will discuss it in sci.physics.fusion.  I
    offer to make further posts for Jim if they are sent in machine readable
    form.  I really hope Jim will get on the internet and join in the
    discussion.

    Tom Droege

    (10:40 AM  3-17-95)

    To:  Tom Droege
    Re:  Visit to Hydro Dynamics Inc.

    Tom it was a pleasure to meet and talk with you.  Thank you for the
    opportunity to respond to your comments.

    Let me start off ty saying we here at Hydro do not dispute anything you
    have said.  We are not scientists and have never made such a claim.  We
    are practical applications engineers, but I think we know how to conduct
    an energy audit and compute an energy balance based on the information
    supplied by the instrumentation available.  When this project began it was
    not my objective to invent an over unity device, but in tying to measure
    production capabilities a phenomenon seemed to be taking place.  I have
    spent the last eight years trying to understand why and will continue to
    do so until the source is explained as new scientific theory, or just
    plain human error.  In our opinion at Hydro the jury is still out and our
    door is still open.  In either case as we discussed we have a unique and
    safe device that can do anything from purify water to pasteurize milk.
    All this said, I would like to clarify just a few points.  I will address
    these by reference to your outline.

    A.  The reference to Dan Parker should have been David instead of Dan,
    but I'm sure he has been called a lot of things since he is an electrical
    engineer and a graduate of Georgia Tech.  (Since corrected in report TFD)

    B. The instrumentation we are using today has been pruchased as a direct
    result of different people visiting the plant and wanting new or different
    methods of testing.  Be assured that we will pursue your recommendations.

    C.  We did not feel that we had conducted a test by simply turning on a
    system.  We did this so you could see a pump and the data center operate.

    E.  Thank you for your comments about a lean operation we try very hard to
    run a sound business.

    F.  1. Actually the work began in 1986 with the first working prototype in
    1988 and a full operational model in 1989.

        5.  I think that maybe I missed exactly what kind of information you
    were looking for when you asked for a log book.  You are right I did not
    keep a book, but as I told you I do have hundreds of data files in my
    computer system as to design, system configuration, type of run and
    outcome.  Had you taken the time to thumb through the stacks of forms we
    provide you would would have found that not every design produced positive
    results and that notes were made on the backs of hundreds of the pages.  I
    don't think we have just accepted our results and congratulated ourselves
    if had we would not still be seeking answers.
    HOWEVER I DID GET THE MESSAGE, I WILL BUY A LOG BOOK

       7.  The main purpose of our testing has been to measure production
    capabilities for marketing, since not every pump design shows this excess
    energy we simply want to know where we stand against a common boiler.  You
    were also right in my reason for hiring Scott.  It is our intend to find
    out exactly what is the cause of our heat source whether over unity or
    not.

       9.  I'm still worried too.

       10.  Sorry I did not clarify myself better when you ask about a piston
    type device.  It wasn't that the piston design did not produce over unity,
    it was that the piston type did not produce anything.  It is a fact you
    cannot compress water very well, I broke a lot of material.

       11.  This was the area wher you cut me pretty deep.  How could you say
    we did not seem to look for errors when everything we hav pruchased for
    testing is to find where we have made an error.  I am an engineer.  I know
    how to conduct an energy balance.  I know that then the results appear to
    violate the laws of physics to try to find an error.  I have tried for
    eight long years and I am still trying!

       12.  OH YES!  I fully understand the significance of making such a
    claim and that is why I have pursued the course and actions I have taken.
    I will continue to test and leave the final explanation up to those of you
    in the scientific field.  After all look what has happened to those that
    have made formal claims.

    As for the rest of the material those where your comments and I sincerely
    appreciate your input.  I will do my best with the resources available to
    us at this time to pursue the recommendation you have outlined.

    Once again we really enjoyed your visit and feel free to come back at any
    time.  We always learn from being agound those such as yourself.

    Respectfully:

    (Signed)

    Jim Griggs

    End of report
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: GG report?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG report?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 21:37:32 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <19950317121945.niemirab@safir.bpp.msu.edu>, niemirab@student
msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira) says:
>
>Tom Droege's Griggs trip report is supposed to come out later today [March 17,
>St. Patrick's Day].
>May I safely presume that if my verdammnt news system deletes Tom D.'s GG
>report over the weekend [before I get a chance to see it on Monday], someone
>will have a copy I could get via e.mail?  Or from Tom directly?
>.............
>

Sure, I wouldn't want anyone to miss my priceless prose.  Perhaps 
someone will give me a little instruction on how to send out 5 messages
to multiple people without typing addresses in one at a time.  But 
not now.  When the time comes.  

Tom Droege
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Brendan A. Niemira           |   "You know your Shelley, Bertie."             
>Dept. Botany and Plant Path  |   "Oh, am I?"
>Michigan State University    |       P.G. Wodehouse
>niemirab@student.msu.edu     |       *The Code of the Woosters*
>        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Report
Date: 17 Mar 1995 21:42:32 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Everything seems to have arrived OK.  At least it made it 
back to Fermilab.

OK, here is a report that will please no one!  Now for the
discussion.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.17 / Tom Droege /  Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Visit Report Part 2 of 5
Date: 17 Mar 1995 20:50:31 GMT
Organization: fermilab


    Part 2 of 5

    REPORT OF A TRIP TO HYDRO DYNAMICS INC. TO STUDY THE GRIGGS PUMP


    THE SITE VISIT

    I apologize if I do not have everything in the correct order or if I
    have made minor misquotes.  I chose not to take a tape recorder as I
    felt it would be too intrusive, so I had to scribble notes.  Often the
    conversation did not allow note taking so I had to rely on my memory
    during my self de-briefing.

    A)Introduction

    I arrived at Hydro Dynamics at 10 AM March 8th.  I stayed until 2 PM
    with a short luncheon break.  We met first in Griggs office.  Present
    were Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson, Scott Smith, Dave Parker and myself.  Jim
    Griggs is the founder and inventor of the machine.  I remember he is an
    electrical engineer with a background in energy conservation.  Kelly
    Hudson is the president and probably does the marketing.  My notes say
    his previous background was as a Baker or Banker - such is the vagary of
    scribbled notes.  Scott Smith was hired by Griggs after meeting him at
    ICCF-4.  I believe he is a mechanical engineer and formerly worked with
    Chukanov.  Dan Parker (a consultant?) built and programmed the data
    collection system.

    At first Kelly Hudson did almost all the talking.  I think he wanted to
    feel me out to see if I was dangerous to them.  Griggs was very quiet
    when Hudson wanted to talk.  Then I presented my addendum to their
    confidentially agreement.  On reading this, Griggs was quick to point
    out that they do not claim an over unity device.  None the less, they
    typed it up that way and it was signed by both of us.

    I then dug out the ICCF-4 paper and looked for the spot where I had
    interpreted a over unity claim.  I could not find it.

    But I can find it now, here is a quote from the CONCLUSION, page 43-10.

    First paragraph:

    "It appears that the label "COLD FUSION" is being applied to all
    research that involves the "excess energy" phenomenon.  Previous
    Hydro Dynamics' tests, including these results, strongly suggest
    the presence of excess energy.  At this stage of our research we
    are not theorizing as to the source of the "excess".

    Last paragraph:

    "During the past there years the test performed at Hydrodynamics
    continue to indicate COP's greater than one.  We believe
    additional research in this area must continue."

    OK, I take this and Jim Griggs' word at face value.  There is no
    "scientific claim" of an over unity device.

    For those that did not see it in the post, here is what I added.  The
    actual agreement is too long for my tired fingers, and was so
    restrictive that I could do nothing but appear in an endorsement for
    their product.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ADDENDUM TO THE CONFIDENTIALLY AGREEMENT

    The undersigned does not wish to have any confidential information
    disclosed to him.  In the event of accidental disclosure, HDI will
    identify the confidential material and the undersigned will hold it in
    confidence.

    The undersigned is here to review the experimental procedures that have
    led to a claim of excess energy.  The undersigned intends to make
    public a report of this review to the internet News Group
    sci.physics.fusion.  The undersigned also intends to outline procedural
    changes that can lead to acceptance of results by the scientific
    community.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Hydro Dynamics is properly concerned that something that I might say
    could result in a loss of business.  I agreed to FAX my comments to
    them prior to posting on the internet.  I agreed to then append any
    comments which they might wish to add.


    B)Instrumentation

    Dave Parker obviously knows the standard instrumentation lore, and has
    built them a good system for the price I heard mentioned.  Standard
    thermocouple technique with a cold compensation box.  Thermocouples and
    other inputs are read differentially.  Parker seemed to understand the
    advantages of such a system.  It has a 486 CPU with a simple but
    effective presentation.  The only strange thing was the speed of
    operation.  It took a half minute or so between data points.  This
    reading only 12 thermocouples the torque meter and a few other things.
    Parker said that the computation part of the loop took all the time.
    Somehow unfolding the thermocouple curves took time.  I suppose some
    inverse functions in some instrumentation language could take time.
    Sigh! A 486 should be able to go at blinding speed for this
    application.  But this is not a criticism, the system is adequate, this
    is just a comment of curiosity.  The whole system is built into a
    little enclosure off to one side of the shop floor to keep it away from
    the dust and dirt.  I judge the data acquisition system to be adequate
    for the task at hand.

    Input power is measured by a Dranitz power meter and a LaBoz torque
    meter.  This gives two ways to measure power.  The torque meter was
    rated at 0.01%.  At least that is what the manual said.  It is a strain
    gage type of device.  They had a lever and weight scheme that they
    could use to provide a known torque under static conditions for
    calibration.

    In general all the instrumentation is adequate to perform good
    experiments if they are properly designed and executed.

    C)Test

    While I did not request that they run a test, they seemed to want to
    perform one.  So they fired up a motor-pump combination big enough that
    I was careful to stand off axis of the pump (to avoid flying debris)
    when they turned it on.

    The set up consisted of a large motor and a Griggs pump with a rotor
    that I would guess at 10" diameter.  A wild guess is that it was a 50
    Hp motor.  There was a long manifold on the input side of the pump with
    six (count em) 6 thermocouples installed.  There was a similar manifold
    on the output with again 6 thermocouples and in addition a dial
    thermometer.  A small feed pump fed water from a tank that was arranged
    so that they could measure the water used, and forced it through the
    pump.

    The test done for me was what they called a hot water test.  Here they
    fed enough water so that hot water, not steam was produced.  My notes
    say inlet temperature of 57 F and outlet (after coming to steady state)
    of 142 F.  I watched the small dial thermometer during turn on.  The
    temperature rose about 2 degrees a second.  This is a high power
    system.

    My one concession to measuring anything was to whip a geiger counter
    out of my brief case and hold it next to the rotor after it had
    stabilized.  The reading was much lower than in my basement.  This was
    also true in the motel room.  I don't want to know that my basement is
    full of radon!  My reason for this concession was that in the chance
    that it was a radioactive process, I did now want to be one of the dead
    bodies.

    During operation, the computer monitor displayed the twelve
    thermocouples, a few other things, and the input and the output power
    in (I remember ) Btu/hour.  In any case, one reading of the monitor
    indicated 210 in, 227 out.  Or 8% excess energy.  I asked if they
    computed the sigma of the readings, and they did not.  But they took
    lots of readings and averaged them for each reading displayed.  Two
    successive readings on one thermocouple varied by 0.4 degree.  They
    claimed their readings were good to 1 F.  My observations were
    consistent with this claim as to rms noise.  I have no idea about
    absolute accuracy.  They made no effort to make any claims about
    accuracy.  I think they just use a thermocouple curve from a book.

    D)Lunch

    When we were alone, Dave Parker confided that he had arrived a skeptic,
    but was now convinced that something was going on.  Through all the
    discussions, he seemed to be most aware of the scientific method, and
    possible errors and how to seek them out.

    E)Plant Tour

    A number of units were under construction and an number of tests of
    various kinds were in process.  I consider any further details in this
    area to be proprietary.  During the course of the visit I heard a
    number of things that were really secrets.  In no case did they
    remember to inform me that I had heard a secret as the agreement
    required.  I have done my best not to reveal such material here, and I
    will continue to keep such secrets.

    I saw many different pump rotors during my plant tour.  Many different
    sizes shapes and configurations.  I stuck my finger into the holes in
    their sides.  John 20:25 (My Motel 8 room conveniently had a Gideon
    bible. My name is Thomas.  Does this mean I am a believer?  Yes, but
    in what?)  Well, what I do believe is that Jim Griggs has spent a lot
    of time and a lot of money developing this device.  I readily believe
    his statement that he has spent $1,000,000 and 5 years work.  You could
    see the evidence everywhere.

    This is Edison at work trying 5000 different varieties of bamboo for
    his lamp filament.  There is a smaller amount of evidence of
    experimental work to uncover the principal.  This possibly corresponds
    to the arrival of Scott Smith.  Most of the experimental fixtures seem
    to be recent.  There is now a plastic pump housing so that they can see
    it operating, and there was a previous attempt to put a window in a
    pump.

    This is a lean organization.  The kind I want my venture capitalist to
    give money to.  There was no sign of a plush conference room, or any
    waste that I could see.  Everyone that was supposed to be working
    seemed to be working.

    End of Part 2

    Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 18 04:37:08 EST 1995
------------------------------
