1995.03.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: 25 Mar 1995 19:23:41 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <ZK65n0Z.jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>I think I can trust it to within 1 deg F. That is our target: one degree.
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^

Are you a partner in the Griggs enterprise?  

Are you part of the experimental team? 

From Tom's report, it seemed that Griggs had hired a person specifically 
to introduce a more scientific approach to the study of this phenomenon, 
and your role never came up.  What is your role in this project? 

-- 
 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:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Hot Fusion Progress
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 02:49:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <JAC.95Mar17121006@gandalf.llnl.gov> James Crotinger,
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov 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.

True enough.  But that hasn't happened yet, and the claim was about
past cost, not future cost.  Fusion researchers *propose* to double
or perhaps triple the budget in order to prove engineering and
commercial feasibility, now that scientific feasibility seems to
be at hand.  But until the money gets spent, nothing is certain.
You know this as well as I do, but others may not.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 / A Siegman /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:57:47 -0800
Organization: Stanford University

>  >PS -  'adjudicated' or 'peer-reviewed' lists really, really, really
>  >really, really, really suck.  ...............  I've NOTICED 
>  >that in every field of interest on the net, whether 4x4 suspension 
>  >discussion or chinese politics or technical or petit-point, 
>  >adjudicated lists are simply NEVER popular.  
>  
>  This is not universally true. 
>  You should try comp.dcom.telecom as an example.

     Or comp.risks as another.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensiegman cudfnA cudlnSiegman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 25 Mar 95 13:23:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Hey, good idea, Tom, of how to decide on awarding the prize money!

However, why limit the reward to a demonstration of 'excess heat'?  
That is, why not include demonstration of charged particle production, or
neutrons, or gammas or some other indication of *nuclear reactions*?
I think this is what you were talking about just a few days ago-- can't see
any good reason to keep the would-be nuclear-products people out of the
running.

In this way, the prize is opened to essentially all classes of what has been
termed (rightly or wrongly) 'cold fusion', without prejudice.  The first
to demonstrate *something* anomalous would then go through steps as you
outlined to claim the prize.

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 / Bill Page /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 26 Mar 1995 04:38:02 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <1995Mar25.132319.2150@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:

>However, why limit the reward to a demonstration of 'excess heat'?  
>That is, why not include demonstration of charged particle production, or
>neutrons, or gammas or some other indication of *nuclear reactions*?
>I think this is what you were talking about just a few days ago-- can't see
>any good reason to keep the would-be nuclear-products people out of the
>running.
>
>In this way, the prize is opened to essentially all classes of what has been
>termed (rightly or wrongly) 'cold fusion', without prejudice.  The first
>to demonstrate *something* anomalous would then go through steps as you
>outlined to claim the prize.
>
>--Steve Jones

Granted that reproducible nuclear products would be just (if not more)
impressive than reproducible excess heat. I see no reason to limit the
prize to just excess heat. One or the other would be acceptible to me.

I think it would be good to finalize this before the ICCF5 meeting.
Someone here suggested advertising the prize at ICCF5 - I think thats
a good idea. Since I'm going to be at ICCF5, if no one else steps
forward to do the advertising, I would be willing to do it. But if
some else wants to, that would be fine with me too.

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 /  HConser /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: hconser@aol.com (HConser)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 26 Mar 1995 00:45:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

If we put it in an interest bearing account, it could grow to a tidy sum
in a few hundred years... I think setting up a trust may be a good idea.
It could be LONG time before anyone claims this prize.

Hans Conser
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhconser cudlnHConser cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 26 Mar 1995 03:18:49 -0500
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <3kv4s8$fqu@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
> 
>Voting will be limited to those who have 
>actually made a post to s.p.f since it originated.  Sorry lurkers. 

This strikes me as difficult to police and easily circumvented. For example,
I've made a couple of posts here, but they were little more than brief
comments and questions. This hardly makes me qualified to judge the quality
and accuracy of an experimental paper. Along the same lines, anyone could
post a message saying "Hi!" just to get a vote.

It would seem more straightforward to do one of the following:

1) Allow everyone on s.p.f to vote.

2) Limit the vote to those who contributed to the prize. This is my personal
   favourite as it might encourage others (such as myself) to contribute
   thereby making the prize even more attractive. (Some minimum contribution
   level should be established.)

3) Select a panel of judges in advance and let them vote. (Note that there
   could be turnover problems with this approach if the prize goes unclaimed
   for a long period of time.) The biggest problem here, of course, is how
   to go about selecting the judges. (Hmm. I see some recursion cropping
   up here...)

=========================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 / PAIN DOC /  Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
     
Originally-From: PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 08:07:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thermonuclear weapons:  The physics of these weapons can
be found pretty well covered in  "U.S. Nuclear Weapons", Chuck Hansen
Orion Books, P.O. Box 200006, Arlington, TX. Page 19-20
lists at least 13 thermonuclear rxs that occur in a thermo-
nuclear yield.  The construction of fission triggers can be
obti
 
Check out "Los Alamos Primer", University of California Press.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 / PAIN DOC /  Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
     
Originally-From: PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 08:12:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I have an address for Robert K. Golka as 400 Warren Avenue
Brockton, MA 02402.  This is taken from the Proceedings
of the 1986 International Tesla Symposium.  That was a long time
ago, so he may no longer be at this address.  Hope this gives some
help.  Have a good day!  R. Moore
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 / Prem Sobel /  Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
     
Originally-From: prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
Date: 26 Mar 1995 13:32:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com> writes: 

>
>I have an address for Robert K. Golka as ...  That was a long time
>ago, so he may no longer be at this address.  

If he has an email address then you may be able to find it by sending
email to the free service at:  info@Four11.com

Prem


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:31:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3kpfo1$8ct@diable.upc.es> JORDI ROVIRA, JORDIR@LAMBDA.UPC.ES
writes:
> In your opinion, I will be possible in long term future a reactor able
to burn
> only higrogenum (not deuterium nor tritium).

The plain-hydrogen fusion reactions are *really* slow because they
require weak nuclear interactions in order to convert protons
into neutrons.  The reaction rates are much roughly twenty 
*orders of magnitude* lower for proton reactions than for D+T or D+3He.

Maybe in the truly long-term future proton-only reactions will be
practical, but there is so much fuel in the form of other light
elements (deuterium isn't that rare; there's 3He on the moon; etc.)
that it strikes me as unlikely that one would ever *need* 
proton-only fusion reactors.

> (I am thinking in a hypotetical giant spaceship to get others stars)

Maybe in several hundred years.  Right now it takes a whole star to 
make appreciable amounts of fusion energy via proton reactions.
If plasma confinement (density * temperature * energy confinement
time) capabilities continue to improve at the current rate of one order 
of magnitude per 5 years of research (the historical average from 1955 to
1990 or so), then we might be able to get fusion with protons only
in about 120 years or so (24 orders of magnitude x 5 years per order
of magnitude = 120 years).  Interesting speculation!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 15:09:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>We should certainly have such checks when Marshall Dudley goes on the scene as
>well. Hopefully, Marshall will be looking to get a thorough heat 
>balance, while Jed was rather more oriented towards verfiying/checking their
>existng experimental protocol.
 
That is true. I think getting a thorough heat balance might be difficult.
It might be interesting to get one, but for my purposes, when I was there
a year ago, it was not essential. An extended duration excess heat run proves
there is no heat storage, so a heat balance is not needed.
 
I should point out that I was not only verifying and checking their existing
protocal. I did that, but I also made several suggestions -- and so did many
other visitors -- and as a result they radically changed their experimental
protocols and added a dynamometer. This was a giant improvement in technique
and it put the results on a much more solid basis I think. They are quite
responsive to constructive critisism.
 
I described the original configuration in detail in my report. I posted a
brief summary describing the newer configuration with the dynamometer, and I
posted several clarifications as well as the equipment specification sheet
from the manufacturer of the dynamometer, but I have never sat down and done
a complete set of experiments from A to Z and described them here. I have not
had time. Also, it seems to me, the "skeptics" do not take any of my reports
seriously so I see no point in trying to convince them. I hope Marshall will
be able to make a serious, careful measurement and that he can write a long
description of it. I will zap him my notes to save him the trouble of typing
out things like the name of the ICCF4 paper and the dynamometer manufacturer.
I trust that Marshall will do what I did, which is to go and measure the
*machine performance*. Unlike Droege, neither of us feels qualified to judge
a human being or a business in a day or two, especially without a review of
bank accounts and business records. I do not think that the personality of
Griggs or his work habits has anything remotely to do with the scientific
issue here. Any investigation or discussion of the matter should be strictly
limited to calorimetry, instrumentation, and other hard facts that we call
all agree on. Subjective descriptions of people's business operations have no
legitimate place in a scientific paper, in my opinion. I think we should stick
to the kind of information you will find in the peer-reviewed literature, and
limit formal reports to discussions of instruments, hard numbers, and objective
facts.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Real Time was Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Time was Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 15:28:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Windows is every bit as good at collecting data as standard DOS is. It is a
little slower (of course), but it is quite dependable. The top manufacturers
of data collection boards and computerized 'scopes began selling Windows
interfaces years ago, and they still sell them today. They would not do that
if the products did not work. It is absurd ivory tower nonsense to suggest
that Windows is not perfectly satisfactory for the kind of application Griggs
is running.
 
I am well aware of the limitations and problems inherent in both Windows and
DOS real-time processing of data. I have had quite extensive experience with
DOS interupts at the assembly language level. Technically, you are correct
in saying that Windows was not designed to handle this stuff well, because
Windows is really nothing more DOS with a bag on it, and DOS was not designed
to handle it. DOS was not designed to handle anything properly. I'll go further:
DOS wasn't "designed" at all! It just kinda happened. Regardless, it can be
pushed, and kudged and persuaded to do this kind of job. There are *millions*
of successful real time apps running under both DOS and Windows. Anyone knows
that there are better operating systems out there, but these are good enough,
and they are cheap, standard, and widely available. No one who has had
extensive experience with real time apps will have *any doubt whatsoever* that
Windows can handle the task Griggs has assigned it -- with *ease*. Droege had
no doubt about it. These handwaving objections from the ivory tower academic
gang are just an attempt to deny reality. The fact is, given the level of
accuracy and precision Griggs requires to prove his point, an original IBM
PC running any collection board you like would have been able to handle the
job. He needs to read the temperature within about 5 deg F to be sure, although
1 deg F is a lot better. Any microcomputer interface ever build could read it
to withing 0.1 deg F with no trouble at all -- even the slowest & crudest one
every built could do that. For that matter, you do not even need a computer at
all. A mercury thermometer and a bucket will do the job with more than enough
precision and accuracy to ensure any sensible person that the excess is real.
The computer makes the job easier and faster. It is mighty convenient. But it
is not necessary.
 
If Griggs was trying to measure milliwatt power levels, then your critiques
of his instruments would be right on the mark. However, his excesses are
thousands of watts, so any instrument can detect them without a problem.
The problems raised here -- like Droege's suggestion that the machine might
be affecting the thermocouples -- are all imaginary. You can verify that
the machine is not affecting the thermocouples in two minutes flat. Any
person with experience dealing with machines, computers, auto engines and
other gadgets will instinctively know to check for things like that. I cannot
imagine why Droege did not check, but of course I did, and I checked for all
of the other potential problems he raised and a few dozen others he did not
raise (and did not think of, I am sure).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 15:40:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Kennel <mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov> writes:
 
>What does it mean for "a similar device to work at 300% but at poor
>Carnot efficiency?"
 
I mean that another device similar to Griggs is reportedly getting 300% C.O.P.'s
routinely. "Poor Carnot efficiency" means that it is not running very hot, so
even at 300% it would not be able to self sustain. You have to consider both
the C.O.P. (or input to output ratio) and the actual power levels and operating
temperatures before you can determine if a machine might self sustain.
Suppose, for example, you had a beautiful machine with a splendid C.O.P., say
5000% (1:50 input to output). But suppose you could only run it a relatively
low absolute powers, and you had to have a large amount of working fluid, such
that you input 100 watts and you got out 5000 watts but the machine required
30 liters of water. In that case the water would not get very hot at all and
there is no way the machine could self sustain under any circumstances.
 
You also have to consider the absolute size of the machine.
 
There are lots and lots of parameters that have to be met before a machine can
self sustain. It is not at all simple, and I do not think there are many groups
on the verge of making one. (Although there may be groups I am not aware of.)
It is a lot harder than people think. On the other hand, only a fool would bet
that it will never happen. There is no reason to think that! Grave difficulties
did not prevent us from coming this far, and the goal is so imporatant and now
so close to hand that they will never prevent us from finishing up the job.
We are, after all, a million times closer than the hot fusion people ever got,
or ever will get.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Bottom line?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bottom line?
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 16:03:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>experiment.  If it had worked, it certainly would have been.  But none
>of us could make it work.  Sigh!!
 
This is nonsense. None of us? Who are us? I know dozens of people who have
made it work: McKubre, Storms, Arata, Miles, Kunimatsu, Ikegami . . .
 
*You* were not able to make it work. Unless you have worms, I think you should
refer to yourself in the first person singular and say "I could not make it
work." You do not speak for every scientist in the world. You are not Amaco
or Texas A&M, you are not Oriani and you certainly do not speak for him.
Others made it work but you did not. That is because your cells were not
kept sufficiently clean, loading was uneven, and the Pd materials were not
tested sufficiently in advance, among other reasons. It is no deep mystery
to me why you failed; the reports you published right here told me many of
the reasons. Things like twisted and bent Pd samples tell the whole story.
If you had taken the time to read the literatature carefully, and if you
had consulted with people like Cravens and Storms who *did* successfully
replicate, maybe you would have learned how to do it. Also, I recommend a
few weeks in the lab with someone who knows exactly what he or she is doing.
 
This experiments requires a high level of diligence and some expertise. It
is not quite as difficult as manufacturing sarin poison gas -- judging by
the Japanese news accounts of that job, and it is nowhere near as difficult
as manufacturing a working semicondtor chip. But it does take a fair measure
of hard work, attention to detail and cleanliness, and perhaps a year or two
of practice. Most important skill take that level of dilligence. Most
manufactured articles and blended chemicals could not be replicated by
ordinary, untrained scientists from a formula alone. Many "skeptics" believe
in the myth that all scientific breakthroughs can be easily replicated from
the formula along, but this was only true in very rare cases: things like
the X-ray. 99.999% of inventions and experiments in history could not be
replicated by a casual worker reading the paper or patent. Devices that
took a very long time to replicate, and a great deal of practice, included:
the prism, the telescope, the airplane, the incandescent lamp, the internal
combustion engine, the transistor, the 80386 processor, and every major
Chinese and French resturant entree. Going back to antiquity, there are
countless objects, skills and techniques which are not easily mastered even
with today's best scientific knowledge, and countless objects that the
finest experts in their fields would have to struggle for months to replicate.
I refer to things like good stone age cutting tools (some of which are
*masterpieces*), Japanese swords, Fabrige eggs, Japanese or Korean pottery
and tea cerimony utensiles, ceramics, Stratevarus (sp?) violins, and ancient
blue glassware. I could easily list a few hundred other items like this.
There are long, detailed, expertly written books describing everything we
know about the Japanese samurai swords. Any metalurgist who is interested in
finding out about them can get them, and he can learn a great deal too.
Contrary to many myths there are no "lost arts" or mysterious skills needed
to make these swords, and there are copious ancient and premodern descriptions
of the techniques. That, however, does not mean that any metalurgist can
waltz in and make one in a few weeks. It takes *years* of practice to
master the skills. Cold fusion is a lot easier, needless to say, but it is not
so easy that anyone can do it. Very few skills *are* that easy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.27 / Matt Austern /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: 27 Mar 1995 01:11:58 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1995Mar25.183111.6885@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:

> Maybe in several hundred years.  Right now it takes a whole star to 
> make appreciable amounts of fusion energy via proton reactions.
> If plasma confinement (density * temperature * energy confinement
> time) capabilities continue to improve at the current rate of one order 
> of magnitude per 5 years of research (the historical average from 1955 to
> 1990 or so), then we might be able to get fusion with protons only
> in about 120 years or so (24 orders of magnitude x 5 years per order
> of magnitude = 120 years).  Interesting speculation!

Even if the H-H fusion problem is solved, though, building starships
will be quite nontrivial.  I'm not sure if we'll ever have the ability
to build ships that can get anywhere close to relativistic speeds.

Do the calculation some time: accelerate at 1g until you get halfway
to Alpha Centauri, then slow down.  Assume you have a magical drive
that can convert 100% of the mass of your fuel into kinetic energy.
The question: what fuel to payload ratio do you have to start out
with?  The answer turns out to be quite depressing.

(Yes, I have heard of Robert Bussard.  There are some strong reasons,
though, for thinking that his idea won't work.  Alas.)
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.27 / Harry Conover /  Re: Bottom line?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bottom line?
Date: 27 Mar 1995 04:58:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
:  
: >experiment.  If it had worked, it certainly would have been.  But none
: >of us could make it work.  Sigh!!
:  
: This is nonsense. None of us? Who are us? I know dozens of people who have
: made it work: McKubre, Storms, Arata, Miles, Kunimatsu, Ikegami . . .
:  
: *You* were not able to make it work. Unless you have worms, I think you should
: refer to yourself in the first person singular and say "I could not make it
: work." 

Sigh...  Another one of Jed's well meaning but ill-informed pontifications!
Trust me, if Tom D. and company couldn't make it work, it simply isn't
real.  While this may not fit Jed's commercial interests, it is the world
of reality!

: You do not speak for every scientist in the world. You are not Amaco
: or Texas A&M, you are not Oriani and you certainly do not speak for him.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this Jed, but I simply cannot recall any time 
when either Texas A&M or Amaco (sic) (Amoco?) took a public position that
presented CF as a reality.  Perhaps some of their employees (speaking as
individuals), but not the organizations themselves.    

: Others made it work but you did not. That is because your cells were not
: kept sufficiently clean, loading was uneven, and the Pd materials were not
: tested sufficiently in advance, among other reasons. 

With this deep rooted insight into why the CF experiments of others have
failed, you obviously must have the esoteric knowedge required to produce
reproducible CF.  Why haven't you reported these successes?

Sheesh...   There will be Snake Oil Salesmen so long as any market for
Snake Oil remains.  Sadly, this market evidently remains quite healthy!

                                  Harry C.


ps.  Don't get me wrong on this, I do love Jed's posts -- reading them is 
like having a personal discussion with someone like...Elmer Gantry or 
maybe P.T. Barnum.  Still, someone has to inject a little reality  once
in a while -- a calibration point -- if for no other reason than to 
prevent the gullible and naive from being misled or ripped-off by
the grifters.


  
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 27 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
