1995.03.23 / Dieter Britz /  Bibliography update 23-Mar-95
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography update 23-Mar-95
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 17:35:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here's another load of - well, blabbliography items and one Comment. I had
thought of putting that Schwinger item into the main file as a theory paper
but it really is a bit thin as such; although one has to say that a lot of
theory papers are equally thin or thinner, even though they tend to contain
a lot of impressive-looking equations, as this one does not. These papers
don't always live up to what one is led to expect, on closer inspection.
Never mind.

Ransford III takes the optimistic view, and has spent 5 years designing a cnf
reactor; the drawings have a strangely old-world look about them. Certainly
they are full of excrutiatingly fine detail. R III has thought of lots of
things, even safety valves and containment vessels (remember the IGNITION!
warning?). Hm. The Rambaut I don't pretend to follow. Rabinowitz et al here
really write a sneak postview of their real paper, published before this one,
but also an interesting lot of introductory material. It seems that Rabinowitz
for one has his fingers in several important pies and must be well known in the
physics crowd. Savvatimova et al usually publish as Karabut et al (same
authors) - must have been her turn - and here don't give much detail about
their glow discharge setup. It seems that the target Pd gets radioactive, even
at discharge voltages below 1 keV. If only the different surface analysis
techniques had found the same distribution of isotopes, the results would be
more convincing. They do not refer to this problem. Sakamoto, too, mostly
evades the problem of obtaining some "excess neutrons" with his first
one-detector device, and not at all with the improved one; he thinks it must
have been due to the different Pd sample.  Someone like Steven Jones would draw
the correct conclusions here. Ah well.

Papers: Current count = 1027
^^^^^^^
#
Ransford III HE;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 78.
"Apparatus for safely extending cold fusion investigations to high
temperature, pressure and input power regimes".
** Reactor design
Ransford II here takes for granted all the claims for cold fusion by
electrolysis, notably an achievable power density of 4 kW/cm^3, and designs
a reactor to handle this. Problems of containment of heat and pressure events
are addressed; Ransford III realises that, since power goes up with
temperature, the reactor must operate at high temperature and pressure. Thus
thermal runaway must be allowed for. Cooling  must be efficient, and will of
course carry away the heat to be converted to useful power. There are safety
valves etc. Fine diagrams of a very complex apparatus are shown, the result of
five years design work. When built, this will run at 100 A input current and
will produce 20 kW continuous and 100 kW  for 30s peaks.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Rambaut M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 486.
"Account of cold fusion by screening and harmonic oscillator resonance".
** Theory, screening, res+, no FPH/Jones ref.
By modelling the plasma in a metal deuteride as a harmonic oscillator and
invoking electron accumulation around free deuterons, R can show that cold
fusion is possible at claimed rates. Earlier work of the 70's and later is
quoted in support. The special feature of the theory is that fusion is induced
by a sudden decrease in the current. The theory can also explain ball
lightning. Calculations convince R that energies down to 10^[-6] eV or so are
sufficient to induce cold fusion.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Rabinowitz M, Kim YE, Chechin VA, Tsarev VA;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 3.
"Opposition and support for cold fusion".
** Theory, comment, res0.
This paper begins with some parallels to the 'cold fusion' affair, such as
Napoleonic and Victorian fluid models of all physics, superconductivity,
superfluidity and the solar neutrino problem; Rabinowitz has made
contributions to several of these fields. The point is that scientists are
often wrong or ignorant. The rest of the paper is then a precis of the
authors' published paper (Chechin VA, Tsarev VA, Rabinowitz M, Kim YE; Int. J.
Theo. Phys. 33 (1994) 617), see its abstract for details.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Sakamoto S;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 165.
"Observations of cold fusion neutrons from condensed matr".
** Experimental, electrolysis, neutrons, res+
The author has attempted to detect neutron emission from a 'cold fusion'
electrolysis cell. First, he used as electrolyte NaOH (conc. not given) in D2O
and a BF3 proportional neutron counter. Background was measured over 30 hours,
before starting the electrolysis using a 0.1 mm thick, 25 mm long Pd cathode,
at 140-320 mA/cm^2. Later, the electrolyte was changed to "LiD" (LiOD is
probably meant, just as "matter" must be meant in the title), the Pd wire was
shortened to 20 mm and the neutron detector was improved to a bank of 6
proportional 3He counters around the cell, with coincidence demands. This now
had an efficiency of 6.4%. The crude preliminary equipment produced a few
cases of weak neutron excess over the background (2 to 3 times), which the
author considers significant. The better setup did not show any significant
neutron incidents. This does not, however, deny the possibility of cold
fusion, writes the author and attributes the difference between the two runs
to a change in the appearance of the Pd.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Savvatimova IB, Kucherov YaR, Karabut AB;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 389.
"Cathode material change after deuterium glow discharge experiments".
** Experimental, glow discharge, isotope changes, res+, no FPH/Jones refs.
This team, which has previously published the emission of neutrons, cp's, etc
emissions, as well as excess heat from their glow discharge setup (Pd cathode
in D2 gas) now look at the Pd surface layers after many hours of applying the
glow discharge (100-500 V, as stated in an earlier paper), using x-ray
microprobe analysis, secondary ion mass spectrometry and spark mass
spectrometry. As well, some autoradiography was done. The different surface
analysis techniques all found many elements produced at the Pd, greatly in
excess of the original Pd surface values; but they find different element
sets. With x-ray, Y and Mo are notable; with SIMS it is Cr, Fe and V; with SMS
it is Mo, Zr, Ti and some Ag. 4He was also found.  Autoradiography after
Deuteron bombardment showed clear shapes and shadows where the film was
shielded from the foil, indicating the presence of radioactive isotopes in the
foil.  There was some structure change in the Pd after bombardment. All this
is taken as evidence for cold fusion or transmutation; fusion/fission
reactions are mentioned as a possibility.
#...................................................................... Mar-95

Comments: current count: 234
^^^^^^^^
#
Schwinger J;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) xii.
"Cold fusion theory. A brief history of mine".
Nobel Prize winner physicist Julian Schwinger here expands on his ideas on
'cold fusion' in an address given at ICCF-4 at Maui in 1994. He points out
many of the weaknesses in arguments, pro and con, and provides some interesting
information on his publication failures in the field. He is one of the few to
suggest the p+d reaction, yielding 3He, as the most likely source of the
emissions.
#...................................................................... 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:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John White /  Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take Cold Fusion Seriously
Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:06:41 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
> As has been pointed out many times, it is easy to get any amount of
> chemical storage per mole of cathode because the energy is stored in the
> vastly greater volume of the electrolyte.

jedrothwell@delphi.com replies:
> Please explain how this works. Electrolyte is water with a tiny bit of
> lithium salt in it. How do you store chemical energy in water?

Energy can be stored by converting water into peroxide:

    2 H2O -> H2O2 + H2     (requires energy from electrode overpotential)

The energy is later released by:

    2 H2O2 -> H2O + O2     (releases 4 MegaJoules per liter of peroxide)

The energy would be stored during the long precharge time that always
seems to be needed before a large burst occurs. The energy is then
released during the burst.

Note that peroxide looks like water and doesn't smell. It will mix with
water in any proportion, and the solution will look just like water.
When it decomposes, the "ash" is water. The only way to detect it is
to test for it chemically.

Also note that I am referring to the bursts that are many times I*V input,
and thus are unlikely to be due to calorimetry errors.

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
> I don't know exactly what McKubre told his sponsors, EPRI, but I
> understand that they have now terminated their funding of cold fusion.
 
jedrothwell@delphi.com replies:
> That is not the full story, fortunately.

What is the full story?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John White /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:09:26 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>                                                      ... I would like to
> point out that many experiments use closed cells, which cut off contact with
> the atmosphere. This eliminates any possibility of absorbing CO2.

Any closed vessel can leak. And often a bubbler is used to prevent pressure
buildup in a closed cell. CO2 can go right through a bubbler. Tom Droege's
first attempt at a closed cell calorimeter used a bubbler, and he found that
the electrolyte was rather quickly neutralized (turned into lithium
carbonate). That was why he switched to his syringe method.

> With an open cell, free hydrogen oxygen gas is constantly formed by
> electrolysis, and this always pushes up the pressure inside the cell above
> ambient atmospheric pressure. A trickle of gas comes out of the cell
> constantly (which must be flushed out of the building or ignited). This
> guarantees that atmospheric CO2 and other gases never come into the cell.

When researchers at Texas A&M tested some open cells they found that the
D2O electrolyte had become about 30% H2O due to exchange with the
atmosphere. This came as a surprise to the researchers, who had assumed
that the outflow of gas would prevent any contamination.

The bottom line is that the only way to show that there is no contamination
from the atmosphere is to test for it. If this is not done, then the level
of contamination is unknown.

> That is a good thing, because CO2 will clobber a CF reaction. It is good
> way to turn one off -- breath on it.

That wasn't the CO2, that was the garlic and onion sandwich ... :-)

It is interesting that CO2 will clobber a CF reaction, especially since
many use potassium carbonate in their electrolyte.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / John White /  Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report Part 1 of 5
Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:11:03 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> But I do not think the stored energy theory will hold up.

Keep in mind that the hot water runs and the steam runs are quite
different, and are susceptible to different errors.

The hot water runs can continue indefinitely and have a modest COP.
The steam runs are of short duration, have a high COP, run at
higher temperature, and have a mixed phase in the pump.

The stored energy and reacting rotor theories apply to the steam
runs, not to the hot water runs.

> >which they see, which is a large, sustainable, power-in drop 
> >for various operating parameter regimes. Their soft _protocols_
>
> Not true for the hot water case.  This is only true for the steam
> case.  I specifically asked this question.

Add this difference to the list above.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  parsec@worf.in /  Re: Griggs Connection
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.infonet.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection
Date: 23 Mar 1995 05:22:39 GMT
Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA

In article <USE2PCB439554313@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>I am still offering to provide him with EMAIL and Usenet access here for $0.
>He will not have FTP and online chat, but if all he needs is EMAIL and Usenet,
>it should save quite a bit over AOL or Prodigy.  Then all he needs is a $100
>modem.

Heck of a deal, and more reliable than AOL&c to boot.  As Mr Griggs has spent 
over a million to date, a modem shouldn't put much of a dent in his budget.    

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparsec cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.20 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Report & responses
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report & responses
Date: 20 Mar 1995 13:32:04 GMT
Organization: sometimes


We're a bit late getting the report here!
Thanks, Tom.

Re: Tom's points and Griggs' response, about logbook,
    calibration, error analysis.

It takes a lot of elapsed time, if not actual compute time, for
acquiring the skills.  Internet is one solution for getting the
access for some help, and might cut the time.  If the funds can
help in this, I vote for this too.  Anything that helps this
investigation.

------
I know it's like harping on old tunes... wish I could bring the
same general observations to Tewari.  Anyway, back to qft and c++!

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: GGOL (Griggs Gadget On Line) -- Was:Re: Good work, Tom!
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GGOL (Griggs Gadget On Line) -- Was:Re: Good work, Tom!
Date: 23 Mar 1995 07:44:28 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) wrote:
>
snip
> 
> If his computer/instrumentation consultant is up for it, get him a
> SLIP/PPP account...surf's up! ;-)

Hmmm... If he gets a SLIP account he may never leave
his PC (like me) and the GG project would become moot. :)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK.  Superresistors?
Date: 23 Mar 1995 07:59:15 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Brad M. Kraft) wrote:

> By lowering the temperature of a niobium wire to 4 Kelvin, you achieve 
> superconductivity.  Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor 
> that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?  I think teflon is the 
> most resistive material known to date.  By coating, say an engine with 
> teflon and atach turbochargers to it, would it somehow be possible to 
> create a near "perfect engine" by converting all of its thermal energy 
> into mechanical energy?

> Brad Kraft   bmk69346@marauder.millersv.edu
> Undergrad. at Millersville University

Huh?  If your talking about an internal combustion engine, 
what about the heat lost through the cooling system, unless
you want your engine to melt.  And turbocharged cars still
have hot exhaust.  Regardless of the engine, heat has to
*flow* in order for it to be converted to energy, and heat 
will only flow from a high temp to low temp.  Maximum
efficiency is defined by the formula (Th-Tc)/Th with
T's in absolute temp units (like Kelvin). Only with 
Tc=0 (absolute zero) can efficiency be %100.
This is all first year Physics stuff...
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Would Like to be Connected
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:26:31 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3kpmbm$j2k@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm) writes:
> Jed ses -
> >he can find a consultant in the Yellow Pages
> 
> A person would need a consultant to join prodidgy?
> 

Since until recently Jed was using CompuServe to access the 'Net,
I do not think he would be the 
best person to offer advice in this area.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Alan M /  Re: Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Super easy way to connect Griggs to the list.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:27:43 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <5e-6uH2.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Or CompuServe with the WinCim interface. That is exactly what I had
> mind. These programs are a cinch to operate. Anyone can figure out how to
> connect to internet with them in a few minutes. Certainly Griggs could; he
> is an engineer for goodness sake.

But that is the most cost-ineffective method of accessing the 'Net known to mankind!

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Connection
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Connection
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:29:06 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3kporf$av2@fnnews.fnal.gov>  Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> I intend to call Griggs today and tell him we will pick up his first 
> three months bill, not to exceed $300.  If anyone objects violently, I 
> will just pay the cost myself.  
> 
Tom:

MUCH MUCH more cost-effective to take up Marshall's offer.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  dwark@vax.oxfo /  Re: Looking for career info.
     
Originally-From: dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking for career info.
Date: 23 Mar 95 11:12:52 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <3k4ek7$pgs@galileo.sct.edu>, crussek@st6000.sct.edu (Cory Russek) writes:
> Unfortunatly, an Electrical Engineering background probably will not help me
> in getting a physics/chemistry related research job. 
> 
> 
> 				- Cory Russek -
> 		         Amateur Radio Operator KE4RQO  

    Well, P.A.M. Dirac had his first degree in EE, and I seem to remember he
did some useful research in physics.

Dave Wark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendwark cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / David Cyganski /  Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions and Suggesions for Tom Droege
Date: 23 Mar 1995 14:08:58 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Tom,
First let me add my thanks. I too got my money's worth from your
trip and report.  Nice job, professional job.

I too would vote use of some of the money to give Griggs an Internet
connection. Let this be the second official grant from the college
of s.p.f. 

I have a couple of questions, that you might want to answer and a
suggestion.

Question 1: From your report it is clear that the equipment and experimental
protocol is not too far off from right. Obviously one might see 10 or
20 percent error in the results without the carful calibrations that
you properly suggest. Can you put a round number on the worst case error
that you think could be taking place? 

Question 2: The power input was measured by both the Electrical power
meter and through torque measurements.  I would expect the Electrical
input power to be at least 10 to 30 percent higher than the mechanical
since there should be considerable loss of power in heating of the
motor that would not be seen as useful mechanical work. Is that how it
looked to you on inspection of the two power measurements? Obviously it
would be very suspicious if the two measures were too close.

Question 3: How did the Thermal output power with your worst case
estimate of error substracted compare to the mechanical input power
with worst case error added and least case thermal loss subtracted?
What I mean be thermal loss is this: The entire case of the pump
should be quite hot (somewhere between the inlet and exit water
temperatures) and thus it should be radiating some of the input energy
directly into the surrounding environment.  Hence, we would expect a
COP < 1 under standard physics. Would you care to put some round
numbers on an upper bound for this COP and compare it to that measured
with the worst case assumptions on the measurement quality.

I'll understand if you can't answer these given the amount of time and
effort you were able to put in, but I thought I would ask just in case.

Suggestion 1: It seems that Grigg's group would honestly like to make
convincing measurements and is only hampered by lack of understanding
as to what these would be. How about we take on a project on s.p.f or
Bill Page's group, to erect a reasonable experimental procedure to
convey to Griggs? I think he would appreciate it, as it would reduce
any frustration dealing with us, and we could satisfy our curiosity in
a way that would not be frustrated by hit and miss experiments.

Suggestion 2: If you want to buy a Griggs machine, many of us are
professionals like yourself with deep pockets to match our deep
curiosity.  I am sure that we could raise the funds much like we did
for the trip.  The only requirement I would make is that the machine
go to a competent engineer like yourself.  You could make this
prospect particularly palatable for our funding by asking Griggs how
much a year's rental would cost.

Thanks again,
David Cyganski




cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  hench@utia.cas /  Re: Superconductors, OK. Superresistors?
     
Originally-From: hench@utia.cas.cz ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK. Superresistors?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 15:48:43 +0000

In article <3KMN3F$1F2@POST.GSFC.NASA.GOV>, Unknown@ writes:
> In message <3klodf$qkv@jake.esu.edu>, bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE
> (Brad M. Kraft) writes:
>
> >By lowering the temperature of a niobium wire to 4 Kelvin, you achieve
> >superconductivity.  Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor
> >that resists thermal as well as electrical energy?
>
> You are talking about ceramics.  This is the reason the Porsche 944
> Turbo has a ceramic-lined turbo.  Ceramics are very good electrical
> and thermal insulators.
>
> >I think teflon is the
> >most resistive material known to date.  By coating, say an engine with
> >teflon and atach turbochargers to it, would it somehow be possible to
> >create a near "perfect engine" by converting all of its thermal energy
> >into mechanical energy?
>
> The energy lost to mechanical friction is not half the problems of the
> internal combustion engines.  The combustion of octane is not parti-
> cularly efficient, but a cost-effective (not environmentally sound) form
> of propulsion.  There are motor oil additives (Slick 50) which contain
> teflon that purportedly lines the inner surface of the engine.  This re-
> duces friction, but does not improve the energy efficiency of the
> reaction.
>
>
> Edward L. Patrick
>
I hate to rain on anyones parade, but there is a fundamental limit on the
amount of mechanical energy that can be extracted from heat energy. If,
TH is the temperature of the hot source (in Kelvin), and TL is the
temperature of the low source, then the maximimum efficiency of a heat engine
is (TH-TL)/TH. The trick often is getting TH as high as possible. Some
innovations: Raising combustion ratios (which is why deisel work so well),
lining cylinders with a ceramic sleeve (not unlike the suggestion above).
Reducing friction is always good, too. However, raising the temperature of
the combustion increases NOx, (RE: Le Chatalier's principle) which is not so
sound environmentally as well as reducing efficiency. So, as usual in
engineering, the engineer is faced with trade-offs.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhench cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Eric Werme /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 23 Mar 95 15:27:07 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>In article <3kgnie$ctc@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>>This reminds me that several months back, Fermi Lab wasn't really
>>claiming discovery of the Top(??) Quark.  But, yet, on the other hand,
>>they really were.  Griggs sounds like he is doing the same thing for
>>the same reason -- he clearly thinks it is over-unity, but he doesn't
>>want to make the formal claim.

>OK, a good point.  But Fermilab has now confirmed their earlier result. 

Yeah, but that *is* their mission.  The priorities of most small companies
I've been associated with are something like this order:

1) Survive.

2) Meet this week's payroll.

3) Build the business.

4) Make money.  This happens to be the primary goal of any for-profit
   organization, but reality gets in the way and makes this be 4).

666) Write scientific papers on the key concepts that give the company an
     edge on the competition.

>  If Griggs had done this type of work, we would take him
>much more seriously.

Absolutely.  I'm tremendously impressed at how open he seems to be.  Of
course, inasmuch as he doesn't understand what's going on and can't afford
the scientists to figure it out, it makes sense to expose part of his
trade secrets in hopes of learning how to make a better product, even if
will also help future competition.

Of course:

777) Be taken seriously by all readers of s.p.f.

Once he reads some of our dialog, this will probably be lowered to 999).
-- 
Eric (Ric) Werme         |  werme@zk3.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.  |  This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwerme cudfnEric cudlnWerme cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edmonds suggests Griggs should claim o-u
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 15:59:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <ZWw4unj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>I said that Jim Griggs wants to keep out of hot water by refusing to claim his
>machine is over unity. deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
> 
>     "First, your characterization of Mr. Griggs seems to me to be completely
>     at odds with his own words, as attached to Tom's report."
> 
>I know the man fairly well and he has told me on many occasions that he wants
>to avoid the minefield and not make any explicit claims that he has excess
>heat. 

     Then we should avoid discussing nonexistant claims.

>However, he does not want to come out in public and *say* the machine creates
>energy, because if he did, the scientific establishment and many other
>powerful and politically well connected people would come down on him like a
>ton of bricks.

     Right.  Face it, Jed.  No one cares enough.  Indeed, if found to be
     verified, the 'scientific establishment' would jump all over themselves
     replicating the experiment and trying to commercialize the yield.

>The U.S. scientific community will *never* voluntarily back *any* over unity
>claim, no matter how solid, no matter how well replicated, no matter how
>widely it is replicated. 

     No, no reputable scientist would back the myriad non-solid, 
     irreproducible, unreplicated 'experiments' that have purported to 
     find 'over unity' operation over the last century.  

     On the other hand, good scientific evidence would be a different
     story.  It appears, however, that that story has not been written.

                      dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Toby Koosman /  Re: New WWW server for University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering
     
Originally-From: koosman@martha.utcc.utk.edu (Toby Koosman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,bit.listserv.fusion,sci.med.radiology
Subject: Re: New WWW server for University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:31:36 -0500
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

I wrote
>The University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering Department 
>announces our presense on the World Wide Web at:
               ^^^^^^^^
               presence!!
>
>http://www.engr.utk.edu/dept/nuclear/

(My newsreader won't let me cancel articles.)


-- 
Toby Koosman                                koosman@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee                                  
Knoxville, TN  USA       
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkoosman cudfnToby cudlnKoosman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 16:21:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>Piece o' cake.  All that's required is the ID of the pipe (schedule 40,
>perhaps?), the flowrate, and the temperature.  From the temperature we look
>up the density and viscosity (I've got the steam tables right here at my
>desk, so no problem there) and compute the velocity of the flow from the ID
>of the pipe and the flowrate specified.  Construct a Reynold's number:
 
How wonderful! An engineer! What a delight it is to read someone who actually
knows how to solve real world problems. Ah, I should find out what the
exact pipe ID is. . .  But tell me, do you think my method of insuring a
uniform temperature is sufficient? As I mentioned in another message, I
periodically dump the flow into a 5 gallon bucket (or a 50 gallon drum) and
I vigorously stir it with a detached mop handle. The temperature always comes
up within 1 deg F of the thermocouples. Does that sound like sufficient
proof that the water is well mixed within the pipe?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Visit Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit Report
Date: 22 Mar 1995 22:28:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3knokg$50h@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) says:
(snip)

>It might be interesting to interchange the location of the thermocouples, 
>to be sure there are no systematic errors that come in that way.  A good 
>cross check with some other instrument inserted into the flow as part of 
>the regular runs (and logged along with what the sensors show at a 
>particular stage of the experiment) would allow one to look at the 
>temperature profile in the flow as well as an independent check. 

I believe they have done this.  But note that this does not help if there
is an error in the calibration.  i.e. delta t is greater than it should
be.

Tom Droege

>
>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Tom Droege /  Should I Post the Griggs Report Again
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Should I Post the Griggs Report Again
Date: 22 Mar 1995 22:35:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Does anyone want me to post the Griggs report again?  I am sorry
that I am all thumbs when it comes to doing things on this medium.
So I would like to avoid the typing it takes me to do it.  I note 
that it is now available on line.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs Connection
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Connection
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 17:09 -0500 (EST)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
-> I intend to call Griggs today and tell him we will pick up his first
-> three months bill, not to exceed $300.  If anyone objects violently, I
-> will just pay the cost myself.
 
I am still offering to provide him with EMAIL and Usenet access here for $0.
He will not have FTP and online chat, but if all he needs is EMAIL and Usenet,
it should save quite a bit over AOL or Prodigy.  Then all he needs is a $100
modem.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:04:48 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <By3YnCB.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[deletia]

But tell me, do you think my method of insuring a
> uniform temperature is sufficient? As I mentioned in another message, I
> periodically dump the flow into a 5 gallon bucket (or a 50 gallon drum) and
> I vigorously stir it with a detached mop handle. The temperature always comes
> up within 1 deg F of the thermocouples. Does that sound like sufficient
> proof that the water is well mixed within the pipe?
>  

Assuming you can trust the method of measurement of the temp in the bucket,
it sounds pretty  convincing to me that the thermocouples are reading the
pipe temperature correctly, and that the pipe flow is fairly well mixed.

How frequently do you perform this test?

Clearly, _something_ is going on out of the ordinary, but exactly what that
may be is what all the smoke and thunder hereabouts has been.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: What to do with the extra trip fund?
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What to do with the extra trip fund?
Date: 22 Mar 1995 18:24:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

With the extra money I suggest you guys have a LOTTERY, amongst those who
contributed (obviously).  The winner gets something neat (say, a ski
holiday), but also must do something time-consuming that is of benefit to 
your group (& the net as a whole probably!).

Wait, here's a better idea!  Hire an inexpensive PR company.  You can all
be on the news or at least in a few papers for your intriguing online
activities.  Maybe you are an online first.  (Can claim to be anyway.)

What story potential:  perpetual motion machines ..  fusion ..  internet
..  hot tempers ..  flaring opinions ..  physics ..  with keywords like
that you'll probably get to meet Bryant Gumble.
........................................................
INT. OFFICE NITE
A guy sitting at a computer

                      JP May
               Who the hell are you?
........................................................
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:55:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3kfcub$leb@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>In article <3keuc9$kg3@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) says:
>
>Hay!  Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
>does not claim over unity operation.  See his letter.  So what are 
>we all debating about?
>
>Tom Droege

     I agree.  If he is not even willing to make such a claim,
     why should we infer any such claim?  That seems to be the primary
     result of the trip, that is, the specific lack of a claim of 
     'over unity' operation by the 'inventor'.

     Without such a claim, or even a reasonable scientific case
     that such a claim can be inferred, the case seems closed.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.22 /  Kennel /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:39:35 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) writes:
>  
>    "If you can *really* produce more heat out than you put in as power, then
>    hook up a generator, powered by the heat, drive the initial device off
>    the power, and sell the excess.  In a few years, you'll be rich, and
>    you'll have shown all the doubters (myself included)."
>  
> That is impossible. The excess rarely goes above 30% It would have to 500%
> or so. When you "hook up a generator powered by the heat" that generator is
> not perfectly efficient. It loses a large fraction of the energy in friction
> and waste heat. Therefore you have to have far more excess than input.

If there is no evidence that the device can ever make more than 30%
excess heat out over power in, there is no evidence that it will ever
be a net thermodynamical generator of *power* and thus *$$$$*.

It may make oddly hot water.

The only route to making this thing be important is to study the fundamental
physics involved.  If there is something new, then one has to study *that*
and figure out how to make your new physics give excess work.

For example, in hot fusion, people are quite convinced they understand
the basic mechanisms of power production through many years of experiments.
Thus, even though there is not a device that is yet a net producer of power,
there is confidence that given thermonuclear ignition or at least 
sufficiently high Q, there will be net power produced.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip: what to do with the remaining $700
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 16:11:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <STOLFI.95Mar19151424@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br>,
Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:
>
>    > [Paul Breed:] As another member of the funding effort, I have a
>    > suggestion for the remaining $700.  Why don't we buy Griggs an
>    > internet connection.  A modem and a 1 year AOL account would
>    > only be $200 or so.
>    > 
>    > [Tom Droege:] I think this is the best suggestion yet for the
>    > money.  ..  How about a vote on this from the contributors?
>    
>My vote is a loud NO.  
>
>I haven't seen any real effort from Mr. Griggs part (or from his PR
>men on the net) to look for experimental artifacts, test alternative
>explanations, or find out what is really happening inside the device.

     I agree, give the money to the American Cancer Society and be done with 
     it.  

                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Calculating Caloric Content
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calculating Caloric Content
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:02:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
     "As I recall, you have said that no chemical reaction can produce more
     than 18 eV/atom."
 
Yes. Octane produces 2.2 eV/atom and coal produces 4.0 eV/atom. A few people
have hypothesized that chemical storage up to around 18 eV atom is the
practical limit. Robert Forward has theorized that exotic, metastable helium
compounds might allow 19.8 eV per atom, or 11 times more energy storage than
petrochemicals (114 kcal/gm; 478 million joules per kilogram). See: "Alternate
Propulsion Energy Sources," Air Force Rocket Propulsion Lab., Edwards Air
Force Base. I am not aware of any claims anywhere on earth that chemistry can
exceed this, and I do not know of any actual demonstrations of chemical
storage beyond 8 eV per atom. Neither do you, Mr. Schultz. I am quite sure
you cannot come up with an example of a chemical reaction that produces more
than 18 eV. I am also sure that you will not even try to come up with one,
you never intended to come up with one, and you plan to evade this issue.
 
 
     "You also reported a claim that a cold fusion reaction has produced
     (after correction for your unit conversion error) 520 eV/atom. Stop me
     if I'm wrong, but my first guess would have been that 520/18 is less
     than 2000."
 
You are quite right! I should have used my spreadsheet instead of trying to do
it in my head. That was from Oriani, who reported a 200 kJ excess, or 50.4
MJ/mol of Pd. You realize, I am sure, that others have seen thousands of times
more energy than Oriani. 200 kJ is not a very big excess, although he did have
a relatively small cathode, so the eV/atom is fairly high. Others have
reported much higher energy density.
 
But suppose, for the sake of argument, we pretend that Oriani has seen the
highest energy density yet reported to date. Okay, the ball is in your court.
Please tell us which chemical reaction fits this profile:
 
1. It produces 520 eV/atom.
 
2. It produces no detectable smoke, ash, color change or other evidence of
gross chemical change.
 
2. It works with only Pd, water, and tiny trace of lithium in a closed cell.
 
Go ahead and look that up in your chemistry book. Tell use which chemical
reaction you hypothesize it might be. If you cannot find any chemical reaction
that even remotely fits that description then stop saying it might be
chemistry. The data does not begin to fit your hypothesis, therefore the
hypothesis is gross incorrect.
 
 
     "I have also pointed out that it seems only fair that given (a) you made
     a factor of 10 error in your unit conversion . . ."
 
I do that occasionally, when I am too lazy to use the spreadsheet. You
"skeptics" do it all the time, in every case. Morrison claimed that a 6
nanowatt effect might explain a 150 watt power level. You yourself are telling
us that a chemical reaction might produce 520 eV/atom. Which reaction? Burning
coal produces only 4, how could any fuel be 130 times better than coal? I slip
up occasionally (out of sheer laziness I admit) but you have consistently,
wildly and irrationally wrong in every single one of your claims by many
orders of magnitude, and you refuse to even attempt to justify your numbers or
explain why your hypothesis is off by such a gigantic margin.
 
The fact is, you cannot possibly cite a chemical reaction that produces 520
eV/atom, or even one that produces 50 eV/atom. And you know that as well as I
do. I am sure you will evade the issue, ignore my challenge, and try to weasel
out of discussion, but any reader can see that you are whistling in the dark.
You know perfectly well there can be no such reaction! You don't have any
reaction in mind -- and you are not about to waste your time looking through
the chemistry textbooks to find one, either. You cannot be serious when you
assert that CF might be chemical. No trained scientist could be so stupid as
to believe that a chemical reaction might produce 520 eV/atom. You know
better. You are merely posturing, trying to score "debating points," and
trying to fool the non-scientists in the audience.
 
 
     "You also have not yet answered my other question, which is that if you
     think that empirical observation is so much more important than theory,
     why is Coulomb's Law (an empirical observation that has been confirmed
     experimentally to something like nine decimal places) not a concern?"
 
 
Your statement is factually wrong. Coulumb's law has *not* been confirmed
experimentally, it has been *disproved experimentally* to something like 9
decimal places. Cold fusion experiments have empirically demonstrated that
under some conditions, the coulomb barrier is porous, and that hydrogen can be
converted into tritium or helium, with a accompanying release of heat energy
thousands of time beyond the limits of chemistry. Cold fusion experiments
prove that *all previous experiments* did not tell the whole story about the
coulomb barrier. Under some special conditions (which are still not fully
understood or definable) the coulomb barrier can be penetrated even at low
energies. That is not a theoretical claim, that is what the experiments prove.
Since the experiments have been widely replicated at high S/N ratios, that is
a fact. All previous experiments that were performed under different
conditions cannot disprove what cold fusion experiments have shown. We have to
conclude that in metals highly loaded with hydrogen the previously
*empirically established* laws do not apply.
 
As you say, the coulomb barrier was confirmed by empirical experiments. But
anything which is proven with one experiment can always be disproved -- or
shown to be a limited, special case -- with another experiment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / John Vetrano /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
Date: 23 Mar 1995 17:11:20 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3kqs9m$7ql@elvis.vnet.net>, jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
wrote:

> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
> > That is a good thing, because CO2 will clobber a CF reaction. It is good
> > way to turn one off -- breath on it.
> 
> That wasn't the CO2, that was the garlic and onion sandwich ... :-)
> 
> It is interesting that CO2 will clobber a CF reaction, especially since
> many use potassium carbonate in their electrolyte.
> -- 
> jnw@vnet.net

Jed, are you just joshin' when you say one can turn off a CF reaction by
breathing on it?  If that could be done, or the reaction turned off by a
sudden influx of CO2, then wouldn't that point to a surface reaction and
not a "fusing" of H, D or whatever on the interior of the cathode?  And if
that were true, then the arguements about the changes possible for fusion
by the H atoms being in a lattice are all irrelevant.  Does anyone try to
"shut" a CF reaction down once it gets going by playing with things like
that?  Or are they so happy they have something that they don't dare let
it stop!:-)  Often, the conditions under which you can't get something to
work will tell you more about the process than those where it works
wonderfully.  Since there is a loading phase and then a "reaction" phase,
the optimum conditions for the two (i.e. surface cleanliness of the
cathode; impt. for the first phase but not for the second?) would probably
be different and one could play with those parameters.

Justa thought

Cheers,

JV
js_vetrano@pnl.gov
boring .sig to follow

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:20:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>Gosh, I did not even take photographs of the people and that is what I went
>to measure.  How do you take a picture of someone's experimental 
>technique Jed?
 
That's easy: take a picture of all the equipment from every angle. Snap the
meters, remove a dial thermometer and a thermocouple (or find them on the
table) and take a shot of them as well. Then you will know that the thermo-
couples and thermometers were at different depths and orientations. Also,
use the copy machine to xerox the manufacturer's spec sheets for the
thermocouples, power meter, dynamometer and other equipment. Finally, as
the people perform the experiment, take a videotape of their actions. That
way, later on when you are back at home and you cannot remember exactly
what you saw, or how many thermocouples there were, or how the equipment was
arranged, you have a permanent hardcopy record to refer back to.
 
That is the most elementary, fundamental, first-grade, Science 101 technique.
You must NEVER attempt to rely on memory. ALWAYS record things with camera
and computer. WRITE DOWN EVERYTHING they tell you as they speak, read it
back to make sure you got it right. Xerox all machine specs -- don't rely on
hazy next-week impressions of what you saw. And never, ever speculate about
what you saw. If someone asks what software was running on the computer,
and you don't have the name of the software vendor written down on a piece of
paper (or better yet a xerox of the software specs), then you should answer
"I don't know." What you did here was you made up a preposterous, utterly
ridiclous tale about how Griggs is running a spreadsheet on his 486 computer
to process the data on line. That is impossible! No spreadsheet could do
that! You made up this whacky idea when I mentioned that Griggs uses a
spreadsheet to compute C.O.P. Naturally, I meant that he used a spreadsheet
when I was there. It was Lotus 1,2,3 to be exact. I have not idea what he
is running on the 486 at this moment. I have not been there in several
months. When I was there, I put the 486 through its paces and experimented
with the parameters a bit. I do not recall the name of the control program
(it is in my notes somewhere), but if someone asked a serious question about
it I sure as hell would look up the name, rather than making up some bogus
nonsense about running a spreadsheet automatically while collecting data.
 
>Remember the confidentiality agreement was written in such a way that they 
>would own the pictures.  I did not want to restrict my investigation because
>I might have photographed something I wanted to comment on.  Whith their rights
>to the photographs they could censor me by claiming I got my observation from
>the photograph.
 
Well of course they own the pictures! Who else would own them? If you are
private property looking at R&D project, naturally the corporation doing
the research owns the damn photos. What do you think I did? I gave Jim the
rolls from the camera and let him develop and decide if they were kosher or
not. That's common sense. I would never let anyone into my office or lab
on any other basis. It would be lunacy to let some guy wander around with a
camera and then walk out with the film.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:31:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>That is not what Tom's report or Griggs comments suggest.  Anyway, if 
>you do not understand the inherent contradiction between the two things 
>I underlined above (Windows was not developed for real-time data 
>acquisition) then it is no wonder you take violent exception to things 
>that seem eminently sensible to physicists. 
 
This is such BULLSHIT! I cannot believe that you scientists sit there
typing this kind of thing, without ever
checking any references or asking any vendors anything! It is such
*nonsense* to declare that Windows cannot be used for real time data collection.
Of course it can! It works fine. Look, we are not arging about some obscure
physics question. We are not arguing about calorimetry. This question is
not open to debate. Just get a damn catalog, open it up, and check your
facts. It is as easy as looking up Sears in the telephone book. Look here:
I have the 1992 issue of Keithly Metrabyte's "Data Acquisition Catalog
and Reference Guide." Right here on page 170 and 171 it describes their
"LABTECH (TM) NOTEBOOK integrated menu-driven data acquisition and
analysis software" which "runs under Microsoft Windows." Okay? Page 175
describes some of their other Windows software.
 
For Crying Out Loud! Don't dispute facts that any fool on a vendor's mailing
list can instantly prove. We are not arguing about the culumb barrier.
As for your speculation about Griggs, and Droege's speculation, it is absurd
and without foundation. Droege went there yes, but he failed to write down
the name of the software, he did not look closely at it, and he does not know
a damn thing about it. Neither he nor you is qualified to make any statements
about it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Peroxide hypothesis does not fit data
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide hypothesis does not fit data
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:32:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "Energy can be stored by converting water into peroxide:
          2 H2O -> H2O2 + H2 (requires energy from electrode overpotential)
 
     The energy is later released by:
          2 H2O2 -> H2O + O2 (releases 4 MegaJoules per liter of peroxide)
 
     The energy would be stored during the long precharge time that always
     seems to be needed before a large burst occurs. The energy is then
     released during the burst."
 
Well, if cold fusion "bursts" were limited to roughly 4 MJ per liter, this
might have some relevance to the discussion. However many continuous bursts
are hundreds of times larger than this, and some are on the order of 10,000
times larger. So your hypothesis fails to explain the data. It is off by 3 to
5 orders of magnitude. A hypothesis that fails to this extent is useless. You
might as well suggest that if I get a running start, I might be able to jump
over the Empire State Building.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 23 Mar 1995 23:15:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 24 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
