1995.04.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 09:18:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>  I'm about to do something scarey in a newsgroup: take a poll.
>Okay, I'll bite
>>    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>
>Year: 2062 *(see note below)
>>    What type will it be?
>An advanced magnetic confinement device. Features:
>	basically toroidal confinement field
>	smallish size (~400 MW, L~5 meters)
>	steady-state
>	simple coil geometry, not linked with plasma
>	superconducting coils

ETC. 

Where will you be 2062???  

But would you want to cart this thing to Mars??? or  nearby
star???  Ah! maybe into the sun.  Well that's more sensible, it
might be one way for it to eventually experience a bit of reality
dense fusion.   


>>    Where will it be?
>Japan(?)

>>    What is the basis for your prediction(s)? (required)
>
>1) 2062. By "power plant" I mean the first plant built to produce
>commercial power on a for profit basis, not an ignition experiment,
>DEMO plant, or even a utility proof-of-principle test. Rather it is a
>plant built to make money from selling energy.

>Given that, the ultimate development of fusion requires the building of 
>certain key experiments in a timely fashion. 

What are you talking about???

>This device will also alloy deployment and testing of full sized auxilliary
>systems such as neutral beams, RF antennas, feuling schemes, etc.
Lots more garbagey work snipped

That fact that you mention this litany is an indication to to some that
it's fundamentally bent.  

>concept improvement (TPX, DIII-D, JT60-SU, LHD, W7x, other alts.) This
>is a series of experiments that either seek to optimize the tokamak
>concept or replace it by a superior approach that has better transport,

SERIES???? of experiments ...  looks like a Claymore blast to me.  

>stability, beta, and/or smaller size. These experiments can be simultaneous
>with the materials testing facility and the ignition facility

Sure except that the wrong state of matter is being used opposite the
plasma in the first place.  It's a giddy useless effort.  First start
with the correct state of matter, THEN go looking at materials.  
Silly.  

>materials testing: There is a need to develop a high flux 14 MeV neutron
>source to use for materials testing. Power plants will need advanced 

Great litany ..  really .. I forget this so easily.  

>DEMO plant. results for the ignition experiment, concept improvement, and
>materials testing, when all three have been substantially accomplished, will
>be integrated into a DEMO project whose purpose is to optimize cost and
>performance features with the goal of obtaining s design with an attractive 


>COE (cost of electricity) figure. IMO DEMO will require 15 years of planning/
>construction after completion of prerequisites. It will cost > 10G$, but may
>be partially offset by utility contributions. If it is successful, then the
>program could proceed to commercialization. However, the DEMO and other
>steps may need to be iterated upon.

Engineering yield Demo burns (aneutronic) are possible in 2.5 years, but 
will they happen..  If I have my way.. yes.  

>Now simple math says that if we got our act together today, the following 
>approximate timeline would follow (assuming using ignition experiment as
>materials facility).

>1995-2005 build ignition experiment
>2005-2008 ignition physics
>2008-2018 materials testing
>1995-2018 concept improvement
>2018-2033 design/build demo
>2033-2035 DEMO proof-of-principle
>2035-2045 commercial plant planning construction.

Build the fuel facilities 
The hipower pulser
align with compressor
C R U N C H  * @#$# 2$    
Let's see... still have time for lunch?? 

God help us.  
That's not America.  

Step one.   the year 40005  won't be enough time for a tokamak.  If the 
machine can't develop the pressure and it can't convert what energy is
developed to electric power, then it's screwed no matter what generation
of children come back to water your bones for dunking their present and
future.  

>--> 2045 first commerical power production

Creak ..  Yawn ...      Come on.  

>Now this assumes that we are diligent in the effort. In fact, what will more
ho ho ho.    No amount of diligence will bring a tokamk to commercial
life    EVER.  

>than likely happen is that we will have progress in fits and starts based
>on funding limits internationally. Therefore we should add about 15 years
>of extra wasted time for lack of planning and vision and resources at the

More time was wasted just having them thier.  They have no business 
developing ANY technology.. let them give grants for science, but welfar
industry is worst of all possible dreams.    

>national decision-making levels. THAT IS, THE FIRST PRODUCTION OF COMMERIIAL
>FUSION POWER IS QUESTION NOT OF TIME, BUT OF MONEY. When the total investment

HA!    Do you think money can change reality.   Money is what has
made it impossible to develop fusion.  WHO runs the program ... researchers??
NO      It's a political money machine.   It is a SCAM

>in the program is sufficient to complete the vital milestones listed above,
>the program will achieve its goals. This investment is the NET investment
>after subtracting out the required support of the base program (which is
>necessary, because without the base, the jewel experiments cannot function).

There is no "jewel".  Level playing field.  If industry won't pick it up
then forget it.  okay? .still need a bit of welfare?  -- have the gov put 
up half the dough and grade input down over time BUT industry picks up 
what's done as well as the rest of the tab and they can do anything they 
want also CF.  The tokamak ... sure if they want.  NOT if they don't.  
Then the unworkable ideas with be winnowed out.  You know, the expensive
unproductive, glitchy, complicated, enviromentally hazardous ideas.   :-) 
And they are well studied ones in some cases.  

Now just so this doesn't give you a heart attack:  

                          Good workable ideas 
                           tend to be cheap, 
                             simply because 
                                they work. 

>At the current U.S. funding level, the amount of investment above the base
>is very minor, and decreasing. Given that funding pattern, fusion in the
>U.S. will never be achieved.  

Not until Goverment control is terminated it won't.  

>                          At some point in the future, funding must
>increase to the level to build the required large experiments (ignition,
>materials, concept improvement, and DEMO). 

I wouldn't call something that puts out milliwatts / cc "large" except
in terms of a hot gas balloon.  (actually a HUGE vacuum balloon)

> Because of funding limitations,
>we have made very little progress on this timeline in the last decade. Our
>only imporvement has been in the concept improvement area. However,
                      
          Wait a minute.  This is a progress flip from Heeter, and .. 
with many hunderds of millions of annual dollars and you have little 
progress????  A mirror machine the size of jupiter, completed but not 
tested???  Same plan for ITER ...  better so since it won't work.  

>construction decisions on various ignition experiments (the next logical
>step) have been delayed or denied repeatedly (CIT, Ignitex, BPX, ...).

And due to some pretty strong opposition, not just from me, but even
chaps like M N Rosenbluth, for example.  

>We are not making progress on that part of the program that is precisely the
>time critical path. Neither have we been macking progress on the materials
>test facility, which will soon become a time bottleneck as well. In summary,
>I give a 15 year waste figure for these lapses in collective judgement.
>that gets us to 2060. Then I add 2 years so that the number doesn't come
>out round and the goobers out there think that this is some  super-precise
>estimate good withing 6 months :>.

Some physicist committee in Briton estimated closer to 2093, but I don't
think the report was released to the public.  

>In terms of the type question: Most reflect required concept improvements
>that must be made in order to achieve (IMO) economic feasibility. Currently,
>people are looking for these as incremental improvement to the Tokamak.

>IMO that won't happen (although I may be wrong). These improvements are
>possible with alternate concepts, but they have questions of their own to
>address (especially confinement).

What? they have confinment.  

>In terms of Japan. I think the answer to this question is very unknown. I
>said Japan, because they are the only country at this time that seems willing
>to make a long-term funding commitment that goes significantly beyond 
>maintenance of a base program. If funding trends in the U.S., Europe, and
>Russia continue as is, they will NEVER meet the goal.

I think you are dead wrong.  I choose the USA.  This International gov't 
pretense at doing commercial fusion development as a guise for big sci 
welfare is now being ripped away.  Next American industry and ingenuity
will step into the (literal vacuum) and find the fusion stuff that works 
and fire it up.  First series of shots- breakeven  not years of  ...  
whatever that shell game with the T, tau, and density was for all those 
years.   My guess ... five years.  Probably take another seven to get
things on line.  

More civilized countries like Japan and Europe have respect for tradition
and elders and things like that.  They wouldn't think of just charging
in there and grabbing the ball and running with it.  (now how did I 
think of that analogy?  :-)

>-just my take on the issue to get the discussion ball rolling

Ah! I read ahead.  

I want it now ... but it takes lots of gutsy chaps that have already
operated the components needed to make it roar.  Then we have do all
that mating stuff.  Finally we shall have our ball.   crunch crunch.  

The important thing is that we have and understand a means that
can get us there with a few orders of magnitude grace.  
A more comfortable feeling than others with a much much larger 
investment already and even huger one to go.  

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



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 16:29:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> writes:
 
>He is understandably frustrated that his name became widely known, not
>for the technology that he thinks will work (Farnsworth's electrostatic
> confinement technology), but for a science fictionalization of a
 
The Farnsworth gadget is *wonderful*. I wish someone would work on it!
That is a perfect example of promising technology that has been shoved aside
by the establishment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Robin Spaandonk /        Italian theory of everything
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Italian theory of everything
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 08:23:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>* To whom it may concern, a brief exposition (     bytes) is located in:
>  linux.infosquare.it :pub\theory
>* Please mail your question to:
>  cassani@linux.infosquare.it
_____________________________________________________
The first address given above does not respond via the internet,
and mail to the second address "bounces" after trying to get a 
connection for 5 days.
I am very interested in this work, and would like to know more, 
however I can not get a connection.

Regards,

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


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Muon-catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed Fusion
Date: 3 Apr 1995 02:42:41 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

timhulse@ibl.bm wrote:
>
> >   zcbag@pitt.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:
>   
> >    A drawback is that the muon has a halflife of two microseconds, and the
> >    production of a muon costs the energy of about 300 to 400 fusion events.
> I read an article somewhere about the Casimir effect being used to successfully extend 
> the lifetime of unstable particles ('cos some of their decay
modes are forbidden in the 
> Casimir gap, I think), I wonder if that might come in handy somewhere. 
> >>>>
> Tim Hulse
> timhulse@ibl.bm
> "How we have progressed, thanks to the machine..." -E.M.F.
> 

From what I've read, it's not the muon lifetime which
has the greatest effect on the number of fusions it can
catalyse.  Rather, it's the probability of the muon 
'sticking' to one of the fusion products, like He4,
and being unable to catalyse any more fusions for
the remainder of it's lifetime.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Date: 3 Apr 1995 12:55:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <KCKLUGE.95Mar31172048@krusty.eecs.umich.edu>,
Karl Kluge <kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:

>Bad calculation. For 14 submissions made after the submission deadline,
>the expected number given oral presentations at any technical conference
>will be zero.

Actually, I looked this up, and the Nuclear division had a later deadline
than most, so your statement should read "Bad calculation.  For 12 submissions
made on the abstract deadline to a symposium with a maximum of 8 papers,
the expected number giving oral presentations at any technical conference
will be zero."  But it doesn't matter:  Mitchell Swartz has shown that he
is completely immune to reason on this issue.  Although you might want to
ask him what he thinks the probability that all 77 papers in the fuel
chemistry division will be oral papers.
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system:  the drive toward high levels of 
low-grade heat."
			--M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, March 1995
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 2 Apr 1995 16:14:07 -0400
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

This post is my second reply to the KD_Pauly kdpauly@mmm.com 28 Mar 1995
10:54:34 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics".

KD_Pauly wrote:

>Maybe you could post all your original papers.

In my first reply posted 31 Mar 1995 16:26:23, I wrote:

  You can get the book free by email from me or ftp from EU Net, and in the
  reference section it lists just about every paper I've ever published.  I
  still have a fair collection of paper reprints if you can't find a paper in
  your Library.  I also have most of the papers in MSDOS PC WordPerfect 5.1
  files that include graphics that can fit on a 3.5" HD disk.

In my second reply I would like to point out that the WordPerfect files can be
sent my email or sent to an ftp site by using the "put" command.  The 3 most
important dynamic ether papers contain 24,754 bytes for the paper without
graphics and 270,915 and 313,917 bytes for the papers with graphics.  It would
not be practical to post the papers in full but the following is the
information and parts of the papers that were published in Chapter 7 of my
book "The Farce of Physics":

The fifth paper[19] I've published on this was in the prestigious journal
FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent scientists have
published papers in over the years.  The paper presents the current foundation
and the fundamental equations of my work on a unified theory based on mass
dynamics.  The title of the paper is "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic
Ether" and the abstract reads:

  The basic evidence and doctrines of physics and astronomy are examined and
  found to contain a simple, consistent unitary nature.  It is proposed that
  all physical phenomena may be better explained in terms of a single
  physical entity if one accepts a conceptual advancement of presently
  accepted doctrine.  The modification postulates that the inertial mass of
  matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a
  circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c
  when mass is transformed into energy.  The logical expansions of the
  modification seem to give simpler explanations for basic phenomena and the
  infinite and eternal nature of the universe.

In part of section, 2. THE UNIFIED QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMIC ETHER, of the paper,
I wrote:

     I think that Dirac's idea of reintroducing the ether in a modified
  form[65] has a great deal of merit.  A viable theory must operate within
  the limits of man's psychological limitations.  The word "ether" seems to
  have a more desirable descriptive potential than Einstein's use of the
  words field, unified field, or energy in describing a unitary physical
  entity.  I think the best name for the entity would be "unified quantum
  electrodynamic ether" or "dynamic ether" for short.
     The dual wave-particle nature of radiation and matter forms the basis of
  quantum mechanics.  The conceptual difficulty of understanding quantum
  mechanics resides in Born's probability interpretation of the wave nature
  in terms of the distribution of particles.  The wave-particle paradox
  occurs only if one insists on describing the physical entity as a wave or
  as a particle.  If, on the other hand, one describes the entity as a
  quantity of a compressible fluidlike ether moving through space, the
  paradox disappears.[107,109]
     A photon's momentum is normally stated as E/c, which is equivalent to mc
  since E = mc^2, the average physicist considering the m of the photon as
  virtual mass which is somehow different from the inertial mass of matter. 
  When a thermal positron and a thermal electron are transformed into two
  photons moving in opposite directions, the virtual mass of the photons is
  equal to the inertial mass of the particles, the difference being that the
  particles had almost no linear motion, while the photons have a linear
  motion of velocity c.  The fact that the center of mass of a particle is at
  rest does not automatically mean the mass does not have an internal motion. 
  This in essence is the flaw in the conceptual basis of the average modern-
  day physicist; he ignores the obvious, the possibility that a circular
  motion of speed c of the mass of matter is changed into a linear motion of
  speed c of the mass of a photon when matter is transformed into energy. 
  The penalties he must pay for ignoring the above possibility are
  substantial; he must invent inconsistent additional hypotheses such as: (1)
  The virtual mass of a photon is somehow different from the inertial mass of
  matter.  (2) When matter is transformed into energy, somehow motion is
  created.  (3) Momentum is conserved if it is created or destroyed in equal
  and opposite amounts, etc.  In order to rectify this situation, I would
  like to advance current doctrine with the following basic postulate: "An
  internal circular motion of speed c of the mass of particles is changed
  into a linear motion of speed c of the mass of photons when matter is
  transformed into energy."
  The following is an attempt to determine some of the possible consequences
  of this basic postulate:

       I.   The conservation of mass; dynamics ether can neither be created
            nor destroyed.

       II.  The conservation of momentum; the momentum of dynamic ether can
            neither be created nor destroyed.

       III.       The equality of action; when two quantities of dynamic ether
                  meet, they both experience an attraction that changes the
                  direction of their motion by an amount proportional to their
                  masses.

  If the above three properties are correct, they should describe all
  physical phenomena in a consistent manner....

In sections 2.1. Photons, and 2.2. Electrons and Positrons, I define the basic
equations that form the foundation of Mass Dynamics.  In section 3. THE FIRST
POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I presented Einstein's former research associate's
argument[73]:

  In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle of
  relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by way of
  emphasis.  One can construct local frames of rest also by averaging over
  the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies; the field of
  direction obtained by this procedure will not deviate grossly from the one
  gained from observing the background radiation.  Either way, permitting
  large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the breakdown of
  the principle of relativity.

Then in the next section 4. THE SECOND POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I presented a
short review of the interplanetary radar evidence that the speed of light in
space was not a constant of speed c.  Then in section 5. RELATIVISTIC DILATION
OF TIME, I wrote:

     Hafele and Keating[74] have used commercial jet flights and atomic
  clocks to present convincing empirical evidence that tends to resolve the
  relativistic clock "paradox."  They found that the relativistic dilation of
  time was a function of the clock's speed relative to an absolute coordinate
  system at rest relative to the distant galaxies.  The clocks that
  circumnavigated the earth in the eastward direction ran slower than the
  clocks at rest on the earth's surface by an average of 59 billionths of a
  second, while the clocks that traveled westward ran faster than the clocks
  at rest on the earth's surface by an average of 273 billionths of a second.

In the next section 6. THE INFINITE, ETERNAL UNIVERSE, I argued:

     Arp[110] has discovered observational evidence of galaxies joined by
  luminous bridges that have completely different red shifts, thereby casting
  doubt on the assumption that the red shift is a Doppler effect.  Pecker et
  al.[111] have presented a photon-photon interaction theory that explains
  the red shift as an energy loss in which the lost energy goes into a soft
  photon pair.  The transformation characteristics of matter and energy imply
  the potential of explaining the eternal nature of reality in terms of
  recycling photons back into matter.  The attractive nature of the dynamic
  ether operating over vast time and distances could transform the energy
  lost in the red shift into huge columns of dynamic ether.  Where these
  columns collide, energy would be transformed into matter.  A likely
  candidate for such a collision event would be the nearby irregular galaxy
  M-82.  A hydrogen-alpha photograph of M-82 taken by the 200-in. on Mount
  Palomar shows a spectacular array of hydrogen filaments that extend more
  than 14,000 light-years above and below the galactic disk.  Photographs
  reveal that the galaxy cannot be resolved into individual stars, although
  at its distance, normal stars should be visible.  The light from the
  filaments is highly polarized, indicating a regular, large-scale magnetic
  field aligned predominantly along the axis of rotation.  It is obvious that
  conventional thermonuclear reactions are not adequate to explain the
  phenomenon.[112]
     Since the heavier atoms are considered to have evolved from hydrogen
  fusion, it seems obvious that the age of a galaxy would be proportional to
  its interstellar hydrogen.  Radio astronomers have found that some
  irregular galaxies have as much as 30% of their mass as interstellar
  hydrogen.  In Sc spiral galaxies, the hydrogen content runs as high as 14%,
  while in Sb spiral galaxies, the content is about 1%.  In galaxies with
  little flattening or spiral structure, they have been unable to detect any
  interstellar hydrogen.[113]  Recent evidence shows large amounts of
  extragalactic hydrogen falling into the spiral arms of our galaxy.[114] 
  The quantity of infalling hydrogen is sufficient to explain the formation
  of new stars and the spiral nature of the arms.  It seems obvious that the
  hydrogen expelled from an irregular galaxy such as M-82 would eventually
  fall back to the galaxy, forming the spiral arms.  The evolution of
  galaxies would be from irregulars to Sc, Sb, Sa, and E, finally ending
  their lives as quasars.  The compact starlike nucleus of a Seyfert galaxy
  is similar to a quasar, indicating the possibility that the quasar is a
  huge super-massive star that forms from the dense nuclear material of a
  galaxy, Quasars release far more energy than can be accounted for by known
  physical processes.  From the beginning, theorists have postulated that
  some form of matter annihilation must be involved.[115]  The planet Jupiter
  radiates 2.5 times more energy than it receives from the sun and it is
  impossible to explain the energy generation in terms of conventional
  theories.  The energy generation of stars seems to be proportional to their
  density.  This all seems to indicate the possibility that the dynamic ether
  orbital structure could be disrupted by sufficient pressure, causing matter
  annihilation, this being the principal energy source of massive celestial
  bodies.  The quasar would be expected to be an efficient mechanism for
  transforming the matter in a galaxy back into electromagnetic radiation. 
  The red shift would degrade the radiation and eventually it would be
  recycled back into matter in an infinite and eternal universe.

I now think that the quasars are globular clusters that form in the dense
nuclear regions of a galaxy, rather than single massive stars.  The n-body
dynamics would suck up the dense material and the pressure mass annihilation
mechanism culminates with massive stars exploding as supernovae.[152]  The
clusters could be expelled from the nucleus by uneven massive gas pressure,
and then orbit the galaxies as normal globular clusters.  The last two
sentences of paper's 7. CONCLUSION, read:

  ...I think the ultimate task of physicists should be to invent the simplest
  possible consistent unified theory that would fit all known empirical
  information.  The theory would rise in status as it became possible to
  program advanced computers with the basic equations and the fit between
  computer readout and empirical information improved.

   My eighth published paper,[66] and the third and last one done in
collaboration with Block and Rhodes, was published in The Journal of Classical
Physics and was titled "Computer Simulation of Mass Dynamics in Electrons." 
The abstract of the paper read as follows:

  Werner Heisinberg contends that modern particle theory is little more than
  a "super review of particle properties" and that we will not understand the
  nature of matter until we devise a theory of natural law and boundary
  conditions defining the dynamics of matter.  In order to address this
  question we have devised an initial computer model of possible natural law
  that is based on two simple first principles and the equation for mass
  dynamics.  Simulated experiments based on the model give high resolution
  explanations of the experimental evidence of photon emission at speed c and
  the 1/r mass distribution of rest and moving electrons.  The model also
  tends to give low resolution first principle explanations of the nature of
  photon-electron interactions, electron-electron interactions, electron spin
  forces, gravitational forces, and nuclear forces.

   My ninth, and last research paper[67] to date, was published in the journal
Speculations in Science and Technology, and the abstract reads:

  Einstein's dream of a causal unified theory of physics is coming true.  The
  dynamic ether has the potential of explaining all microscopic and
  macroscopic physical phenomena in terms of simple first principles.

A sampling of some of the highlights of the paper, goes as follows:

  Much of Albert Einstein's life was devoted to searching for a theory that
  incorporates gravity and other fields into a generalized geometrical
  structure derived from the general theory of relativity.  Peter G. Bergmann
  collaborated with Einstein on research on this problem and in his paper
  `Unitary field theories',[116] he gives a brief review of the fragmentary
  nature and the difficulties inherent in this type of approach....  Banesh
  Hoffmann's paper, `Einstein the catalyst',[117] shows how Einstein's bold
  and iconoclastic style and his pioneering endorsement of other people's
  revolutionary ideas influenced many important 20th century physicists. 
  `What of Einstein's refusal to accept as final the indeterminacy
  probabilistic nature of the quantum theory that he had done so much to
  bring into existence?  There was a time when it was almost professional
  suicide for a physicist to raise doubts about the so-called Copenhagen
  interpretation.'  It now appears that the tide has changed in Einstein's
  favor on this question.  In 1951, David Bohm's causal pilot wave theory
  caused Louis de Broglie to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation and return
  to his original deterministic philosophy of quantum mechanics.[118]  In
  1953, Erwin Schrodinger, in his paper, `What is matter?',[119] writes:
  `Physics stands at a grave crisis of ideas.  In the face of this crisis,
  many maintain that no objective picture of reality is possible.  However,
  the optimists among us (of whom I consider myself one) look upon this view
  as a philosophical extravagance born of despair.'  In 1957, the Soviet
  physicist V. A. Fock `went to Copenhagen and presented Niels Bohr with a
  paper in which complementarity was criticized in four different ways: (1)
  one should insist on the fact that the psi function of quantum mechanics
  represents something real; (2) the presence of precise mathematical laws is
  equivalent to a certain type of causality; (3) limitations in understanding
  come only from the use of a classical language; (4) no "uncontrollable
  interaction" between apparatus and system takes place during measurements. 
  After reading the paper, it is known that Bohr agreed on these four
  points.'[120]  In 1963, P. A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the
  physicist's picture of nature',[65] writes: `one can make a safe guess that
  uncertainty relations in their present form will not survive in the physics
  of the future'.   Andr‚ Mercier reports[121] a conversation with Werner
  Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that even major modifications of
  present physical theories would not transform them into the desired new
  theory, as quite different and novel ideas are required.  Secondly, the
  impact of quantum theory and relativity theory on the minds of those
  scholars who helped found them during the first half of our century is
  conceivably such that they are imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot
  help but reason conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts;
  whereas the need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be
  carried through by nonconformists.'...  There is a popular myth in modern
  physics that argues that relativity and quantum mechanics are not ether
  theories.  The current publication of the translation of a 1922 lecture by
  Einstein shows that he developed relativity as an ether theory.[48]  He
  reconfirms this fact in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics,[20 p.153]
  and argues that because of the `forced and artificial character of the
  assumption' he gave up on trying to devise a mechanical model of ether. 
  There are a few enlightened physicists who admit that the `vacuum' of
  quantum mechanics is really the ether.[122]  The problem with the static
  ether is the fact that it is a solid which if it had the shear modulus of
  elasticity no less than steel, must have a density less than that of our
  best vacuum in order to transmit transverse waves with the speed of
  light.[123]  On the other hand, the compressible-fluid-like mass of my c
  model of mass dynamics[19] is equivalent to a dynamic ether that moves with
  the physical phenomena, and it is a simple matter to make mechanical models
  where the elasticity and density are proportional to the phenomena.  The
  concept of a dynamic ether is hardly new.  Lord Kelvin developed this type
  of theory in the middle of the 19th century.  It was far ahead of its time,
  and Maxwell gave it a glowing review.[124]... Our paper, `Computer
  simulation of mass dynamics in electrons',[66] attacks the mathematics
  problem of the c model by developing a mass-in-cell technique that is
  similar to the 3D gridless charge cloud-in-cell computer numerical
  integration method used in plasma simulations.[125]  Figure 1 plots the
  results from current simulation experiments where each particle is divided
  into 12 independent cells of radius 2.8 X 10^-15 m and the differential
  mass of the particle is simulated by a computer algorithm that determines
  the c.m. of the particle and substitutes a centre cell of radius 2X10^þ14
  m.  All cells move at speed c and the position of each cell was plotted at
  2 X 10^-24 sec intervals with 1/2 step integration and calculations at 10^-
  25 sec intervals.  The cell surfaces are plotted at their initial starting
  positions and the elapse time for all but the (c) and (d) experiments was
  1.2 X 10^-22 sec which gave slightly more than one rotation of a rest
  particle.  The (a) experiment shows the wave pattern that results from a
  two-cell photon, (b) shows a captured one-cell photon moving with the mass
  flow of a rest electron, (c) gives the path of a photon moving through the
  electron with the mass flow, and (d) shows the path of a photon moving
  against the electron mass flow.  All the photon cells had one-tenth the
  mass of the electron cells.  The (e) experiment shows the repulsion of two
  electrons with opposing mass flows in the same plane, (f) shows electron-
  positron annihilation that results from the mass flows coming together from
  the same direction, and (g) shows two-electron repulsion from a head-on
  collision and the wave patterns of moving electrons.  The (h) experiment
  shows positron-electron bonding with mass flows moving in the same
  direction....  The use of independent mass cells can be expensive in terms
  of computer time.  Higher resolution using far more mass cells would be
  desirable, but calculation time tends to be proportional to n^2, and it may
  take massive parallel processing computers to obtain resolution that would
  result in reasonably good quantitative results.... Figure 2 lists a
  computer program called UNIFIED that introduces the gravitational force as
  due to a mass cell surface tension that is very small when any mass is
  immersed within the fluid-like mass of the body of the electron, but tends
  to approach the magnitude of the Lorentz-type mass flow force when the cell
  starts to separate from the surface of the electron.  The model postulates
  that the inner radius that determines the rest mass of the electron is
  similar to the inner surface of a bubble that is held together by the
  surface tension....  the FG values gives the predicted gravitational force
  in (10^-43 N), and the FGCM values give the equivalent force derived from
  the surface tension characteristics of the mass cells.... Both the FLCM and
  FGCM results are good to within 3 s.f. of the predicted values out to
  100,000 (10^-16 m) using a PRIME 750 running BASICV at 13 s.f.... Figure 3
  shows plotted curves of the Lorentz force FL between two electrons moving
  in the same direction along parallel paths at the same speed that ranged
  from 0 to 0.9c....  The points plot the FLCM c model values obtained from
  the UNIFIED program.  Note that at the 10^-13 m interelectron distance
  there is no observable difference between the Lorentz and c model
  predictions, while at the 10^-14 m distances one can observe a deviation
  that occurs for both the Lorentz and gravitational forces when the
  interelectron distance is within the 1.1 X 10^-14 m point where the 50%
  electron mass distribution distances touch.  Analysis of weak decay of
  hadrons and simulation experiments of test cells through stacked arrays of
  electrons and positrons lead to the proposal of a neutral pion content of
  104 electrons and positrons with mass flow binding energy that could carry
  spin might tend to explain the ~ 100X strong to electromagnetic interaction
  ratio.... In John S. Bell's paper `On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen
  paradox',[126] Bell states: `It is the requirement of locality, or more
  precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by
  operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past,
  that creates the essential difficulty' (for causality).  If one follows
  Dirac's suggestion to introduce non-local hidden variables inside the
  particles themselves, i.e. drop the point-particle picture, then one opens
  the possibility of such an action at a distance propagating as phase
  motion.[127]  This is consistent with Louis de Broglie's argument[128] that
  a particle `could be compared to a small clock', and it is also compatible
  with the Figure 1 photon (a) and electron (g) wave patterns.  Modern laser
  interference experiments[129,130] clearly show that the old probabilistic
  argument that a photon interferes with itself, is untenable.  The
  experiments can be explained, however, by the argument that clock-like
  photons synchronize clock-like electrons in the interference area, and
  future photons then interact with the electrons.  
     The evidence of energy transfer between photons in intense laser
  beams,[131] the large body of evidence of anomalous red-shifts in galaxies
  and quasars,[132] and the large-scale filamentary structure of the galaxies
  in the universe,[133] all tend to support the steady-state model presented
  in my earlier paper.[19]  The c model of mass dynamics is probably the
  simplest possible first principle unified theory that can be devised.  It
  is, I suspect, little more than a first-order approximation to an ultimate
  model because of the evidence that the speed of light in space is not
  constant.  A c+v model will have to be developed, but because of
  flexibility of the dynamic ether concept, I do not anticipate any major
  problems.  I feel that this type of approach will lead mankind toward an
  intimate understanding of the simple microscopic and macroscopic nature of
  our infinite eternal universe.  This is the dawning of the golden age of
  physics.

   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a
command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format.  The
HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via

URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

If one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send
the request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size
limit for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB
for Chapter 3.

Bryan




cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Neil Rickert /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 3 Apr 1995 09:40:52 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <3ln0if$7mh@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) writes:

>The fifth paper[19] I've published on this was in the prestigious journal
>FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent scientists have
>published papers in over the years.

Anybody who things it important to boast of the prestige of the
journal in which he has published, must surely be some kind of
crackpot.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 /  Gail /  $700 well spent on Tom D.
     
Originally-From: gforman@hamlet.umd.edu (Gail)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: $700 well spent on Tom D.
Date: 3 Apr 1995 11:19:28 -0400
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

This is a proposal for a good way to spend the left-over money from
Tom's trip and "debunking."  As I told him it wahs bad science and
a waste of his time.
The ulttrasound stuff is wrong because of bad logic.  Not bad exptts.
They should do a truth table (yes, all the steps to include looking
at the assumptions, and not using inverses or converses to do reasonings.
  If they do they will end up with the overall truth table for blue light =
high temperature being inconclusive.)  Hint:  is the only way to get
blue light from high temperature.   Hint 2: what happes to water when
it is subjected to high pressure?

Tom should be given the money to visit DC because:
     1) He can see the guy at EPRI that funds Mike McKubre and:
	As for funds as a debunker of bad CF expts.;
        He can learn where else EPRI might fund work and on what topics;
        He might find out if EPRI is funding Mike McKubre jointly with Japan, Inc.
	He can see if they will supply him with any independent evaluations
of any CF work;
	etc.
     2) He can visit with me and I can tell him in confidence what to do 
to check on the ultrasound stuff.
     3) He can see Washington in the Spring when it is at its best.
     4) He and I can talk over my latest theoretical work on CF.

What better investment could there be!
Dick Forman
[Using my wife's Internet account so:
Reply to me at 5304301@mcimail.com]
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengforman cudlnGail cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 15:13:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <3lmlun$645@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote 

"Actually, I looked this up, and the Nuclear division had a later deadline
than most,..."

 At last,  Richard Schultz has apparently admitted that as many
as 12 papers were submitted  before the end of the deadline.
 Thanks.  
  Therefore the calculation ought be corrected to:

   -Why were ALL 12 papers assigned to posters when such
   likelihood is only about  3 in a million.  
 The expectation value becomes  > 7 or 8    (+/- 3).
  But the observed?          Observed = 0.

It is also noted that despite several postings, all with much
hand-waving, there is no denial to the following which have
been claimed by those that submitted the papers:

   -Do you dispute that ACS NCDT stonewalled repeated requests by Passell
   and Kohn to meet and discuss the details of the plans and procedures?

    -Do you deny that the ACS News office contacted a selection of those who
   submitted cf abstracts with urgent letters stating it was their intent to stage 
   special press arrangements?    Why would that be?
     Do you deny that the Press release to C&EN  may indicate 
   the opposite of such?

  Best wishes.                  Mitchell Swartz



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Jurgen Botz /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 3 Apr 1995 16:49:49 GMT
Organization: Mount Holyoke College, MA, USA

In article <3lp1dk$658@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>Anybody who things it important to boast of the prestige of the
>journal in which he has published, must surely be some kind of
>crackpot.

Is this a troll?  It may be unfortunate, but the relative prestige of
publications are the underpinnings of academic legitimacy.  Is it not
on this basis that the status of academics at their institutions is
largely determined?

Furthermore, especially unorthodox theories have to compensate for the
fact that the prejudices of their readers are already against them by
passing the muster of highly respected editors and peer-reviewers.
Or, put differently, since academia is damned conservative to say the
least, having an unorthodox theory published in a prestigeous journal
is proof that its arguments are sufficiently sound that even those who
have a stake in preserving the status quo couldn't outright dismiss
them.  So far from being an infirmity this kind of boasting is merely
a candid application of the principles all academics have to live by...
any academic who would deny this is a hypocrite.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbotz cudfnJurgen cudlnBotz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: 3 Apr 1995 12:44:55 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <D6EHuv.1zq@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>>Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>  I'm about to do something scarey in a newsgroup: take a poll.
>>Okay, I'll bite
>>>    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>>
>>Year: 2062 *(see note below)



>Sure except that the wrong state of matter is being used opposite the
>plasma in the first place.  It's a giddy useless effort.  First start
>with the correct state of matter, THEN go looking at materials.  
>Silly.  

Well, there is a point here. If the first wall is solid, then the materials
problems I outlined are the proper and prudent course of action.

On the other hand, Koloc seems to advocate (pardons in advance if I
mis-represent) a liquid first wall. Well this is all fine and good if
it works. In fact I've done some work on just such a type of fusion
scheme that allows one to evade the Virial theorem restrictions on
equilibrium. However, the difficulties of maintaining a transition
from plasma to gas to liquid are mind-bogglingly complex. In fact it
makes engineering the first wall components look trivial by
comparison, IMO. There are tremendous problems that have not even begun
to be adequately explored. Let me just mention 2. First, the
liquid/gas interface will be notoriously unstable to Rayleigh-Taylor
modes, particulalrly if one proposes to use the liquid blanket as a
compression device as I understand Paul's Plasmak concept. This is a
really tough problem that has defied solution. The only alternative
seems to be to avoid it. In fact, from what I understand of Inertial
Fusion with lasers, we would already be well on the way to commercial
laser fusion if these interchange modes could be surpressed.

Second, if your force balance equilibrium depends on externally applied
pressure, as Paul's seems to, then there must be some transition region
where plasma condensation is occuring. That is there is a region that is
emitting a lot of light where outgoing plasma is recombining and/or ingoing
gas is ionized. Now this is a big problem for 2 reasons. First, it will mean
the loss of a great deal of energy by means of radiation. This is bad. This
is why current experiments try very hard to reduce impurities to increase
confinement. Paul's plasmak seems to risk being a bright light flash but
nowhere near a fusion device. The second problem is that the existence
of this plasma/gas boundary is notoriously unstable to the generation
of an ingoing or an outgoing recombination/ionization front. The first
case will mean that the plasma is snuffed, the second will mean that it
will tear itself apart. If you are looking for a good fusion plasma, you are
not looking for a glowing plasma. You want one hot enough and pure enough
so that it does not emit light.

Now I've been ripping on Paul's plasmak idea, but not really to demean it. I
am in favor of investigating curious devices that might offer potential, no
matter how bizzare. My
point is that I predicated my previous answer based on my integrated experience
and my point of view. I am callling it like I see it. While I am aware of
some of Paul's ideas, I certainly don't claim to have taken the time to
dissassemble them all and understand them to the marrow. Nevertheless I
am led very strongly to concluded that upon further examination, the plasmak
has warts every bit as big as Tokamaks, or RFP's, or stellerators, or FRC's,
even if it does present some desirable features. It is not likely to be the 
cheap "end-run" that we would all wnat to find.

I will note, that in this post, Paul did not advocate his Plasmak idea
by name as he usually does nor did he sign it with his 
characteristic "commercial fusion in the 90's" .sig

Except he did hint,

>
>Engineering yield Demo burns (aneutronic) are possible in 2.5 years, but 
>will they happen..  If I have my way.. yes.  
...
>
>Build the fuel facilities 
>The hipower pulser
>align with compressor
>C R U N C H  * @#$# 2$    
>Let's see... still have time for lunch?? 
>
>God help us.  
>That's not America.  
>
>Step one.   the year 40005  won't be enough time for a tokamak.

Now this brings up an interesting point. I guessed 2062. Paul guesses
40005 (or more). What's the difference? That is, in terms of planning
our actions today and in the near future, how should they be governed if the
answer to Michael Brumm's question is 20602, 40005, or never? IMO very little.
I will likely not be around in any of the cases. In terms of financial
analysis, the difference between repaying a loan on a 100 year term and
servicing the debt on a perpetual mortgage are very, very small. What is the
value of the development of fusion in the year 2062? Let's guess it is
worth 10 Billion dollars. What is the present value of that future innovation?
well, using a 5% discount rate for 67 years in the future, that comes out to
around 350 million dollars, or about 1 years funding at the current levels.
Now consider, is 10 G$ a proper value for a complete technology for how to
build a fusion power plant with a cost of electricity comparable to current
rates? Well, it is my best guess, but others may differ. However, if you think
it is worth more, try to think of an example of an invention whose PATENT
RIGHTS, BY THEMSELVES, were worth over 10G$.

So my point is 2062, 40005, or never may all mean that fusion is impractical.
Which means, I guess that I just made Paul's next point for him,

>More time was wasted just having them [the government]
>thier.  They have no business 
>developing ANY technology.. let them give grants for science, but welfar
>industry is worst of all possible dreams.    
>
...
>
>There is no "jewel".  Level playing field.  If industry won't pick it up
>then forget it.  okay? .still need a bit of welfare?  -- have the gov put 
>up half the dough and grade input down over time BUT industry picks up 
>what's done as well as the rest of the tab and they can do anything they 
>want also CF.  The tokamak ... sure if they want.  NOT if they don't.  
>Then the unworkable ideas with be winnowed out.  You know, the expensive
>unproductive, glitchy, complicated, enviromentally hazardous ideas.   :-) 
>And they are well studied ones in some cases.  
>
>Now just so this doesn't give you a heart attack:  
>
>                          Good workable ideas 
>                           tend to be cheap, 
>                             simply because 
>                                they work. 

A very good point that is all too often overlooked. Of course we have to
also make allowances for the possibility that no simple cheap solution
exists. What do we do then? Do we give up, or do we roll up our sleeves
and try things which are not simple. Current policy seems to be to roll
up our sleeves. At least in this post, I seem to be saying, maybe we should
seriously consider giving up (or at least include it in a list of options).
I think Paul would say that he sees a cheap, simple solution, but many others
might think he is selling snake oil.

>> Because of funding limitations,
>>we have made very little progress on this timeline in the last decade. Our
>>only imporvement has been in the concept improvement area. However,
>                      
>          Wait a minute.  This is a progress flip from Heeter, and .. 
>with many hunderds of millions of annual dollars and you have little 
>progress????

My words are being twisted and used against me. Help! In previous comments
I have said that some results we see today are impressive and to be appaulded.
In this thread I made the above comment about a lack of progress. Apparently,
I am caught riding both sides of the fence. However, fear not. I am consistent.
As I said in my original post, there is a lag between investment in design
and construction and results. Over a decade ago, the U.S. fusion program was
making significant progress building new devices. One of those devices was 
TFTR which did deliver what it had promised when it was designed. This was the
subject of my discussion on the other threads. 

The problem is that the program has been retreating ever since TFTR
was built. It has staged holding actions in the form of DIII-D and
Alcaotr C-MOD, but it has completely sacrificed its quick light
calvery in terms of all alternate concepts. The past has delivered as
promised and the future will do so as well, but fusion can only
deliver, when it is given the resources it requires. Do not fault the
lack of results over the next 15 years with a fundamental lack of
capacity of fusion science, rather it is a collective lack of will to
pursue the program to its logical conclusion (or perhaps it is a
conscious decision depending on how you read the tea leaves)


>>IMO that won't happen (although I may be wrong). These improvements are
>>possible with alternate concepts, but they have questions of their own to
>>address (especially confinement).
>
>What? they have confinment.  

Speaking of confinement times, what is the energy loss time in a plasmak and
how does it scale with device size?


>... First series of shots- breakeven  not years of  ...  
>whatever that shell game with the T, tau, and density was for all those 
>years.   My guess ... five years.  Probably take another seven to get
>things on line.  

You heard it here first folks. in 12 years until we all have Plasmaks.
Watch your electricity bills plummet. Lord knows I sure would like to see it.

On a more serious note, please take note. Fusion proponents have consistently
been chided and spanked for "over-promising" the arrival of fusion. Now from
a sociological point of view how does this occur? Well, you have just seen it.
Responsible people give responsible estimates that are a long way off. Then
unrelated fringe elements promise the sky. No-one who is responsible
endorses those estimates, and many actively repudiate them. Nevertheless,
people tend to remember the one or two people who are loudly shouting "I can
do it cheap, in a few months, in my garage" and transfer that unrealism as a
stain that tarnishes those who acted responsibly. This is why you have seen
many posters who have expressed no small amount of consternation at Paul, or
in previous times, Brussard because they know what comes next. Their wild
promises become the Albatrosses that hang from the fusion program's neck
for years to come. 

Just note that DOE has but estimates for DEMO at around 2035. I gave you my
personal estimate of 2062 for commercial power and it was PAUL KOLOC who 
promised it to you in 12 years. If he does it, more power to him [sorry for
the pun]. but if he fails, don't blame me, or Tokamaks, or FRC's, or
DOE, or anyone else for overpromising because I did not do it.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 3 Apr 1995 18:45:53 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <cary-280395085645@macsac11.svl.trw.com>, cary@svl.trw.com
(Cary Jamison) says:

>> Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
>> poetry newsgroups.
>> 
>
>I agree, John.  We knew before Tom left that Griggs was not making a public
>claim of over-unity; but when Tom came back all he could say was that since
>Griggs isn't claiming over-unity there is nothing to study.
>
>His report was interesting, but I was disappointed in this respect.
>
>-- 
>Cary Jamison
>cary@svl.trw.com

Cary,  you should not be disappointed in my report.  You should reserve
you disappointment for the quality level of Griggs' work.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: Farce of farce of physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Farce of farce of physics
Date: 3 Apr 1995 17:09:05 -0400
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

Neil Rickert (rickert@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
: In <3lk5np$tf9@oak.oakland.edu> sscordon@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Sean Cordone) writes:

: >My God, aren't there any skeptics on sci.skeptic?? This "Farce of Physics"
: >thread has elicited nothing but "gee, that sounds interesting" or "I've figured
: >out the universe and been rejected by the science community as well". Does it
: >not seem strange that evidence contradicting established theories conceived by
: >some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century is being disseminating on
: >the Internet, cross posted to alt.aliens, alt.abduction.anal.probe, or
: >whatever???

: Give us a break.  Wallace has been perpetrating his farce for some
: time now.  It received skeptical criticism at first.  Most of us have
: realized by now that "Wallace" must be the acronym of a poorly
: designed AI system, which has failed the Turing Test.  This
: mechanical device is operating in a simple loop.  It monitors the
: usenet stream.  Whenever it sees something which criticizes the
: thesis of "farce", it regurgitates the same quotes out of context,
: the same advertising blurb, etc.

: Most of us have realized that the best way to deactivate this
: broken system, is to avoid stimulating it.  That requires ignoring
: the repetitios nonsense that the mechanical system periodically spews
: out.

I've been called many things over the years, but you are the first to call
me "the mechanical system." It is obvious from your comments that you have
never read the book since it is largly composed of quotes from the
greatest minds of the 20th century.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Griggs Gadget
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Gadget
Date: 3 Apr 1995 19:51:37 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

M. R. Gadsdon <MGADSDON@ESOC.BITNET> wrote:

> I have only been tracking this newsgroup for a month or so, so I appologise
> in advance if this ground has already been covered.

> It seems to me that Griggs may have an over unity device, which may operate
> on similar principles to the other reported cold fusion devices based on
> electrolysis & ultrasound cavitation techniques.  Where the GG differs
> significantly from the other techniques is that it uses both plain (or even
> dirty) water and a steel housing plus aluminium (?) instead of Palladium or
> Nickel electrodes / targets in the other techniques.

> Has Griggs tried, or has anyone suggested he try Nickel or Palladium plated
> rotors or rotor housing ?  If the Griggs effect is real & the other CF
> reports are also real, this would seem an effective method of (possibly)
> boosting the output.


All we know about the Griggs device are anecdotes of
over unity performance (Griggs won't even go on the
record with an official claim).

Any attempts to explain the GG in terms of cold fusion
is pure WAG. (Wild-ass guessing)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / Douglas Wood /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: djwood@ucsd.edu (Douglas J. Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 22:07:13 -0800
Organization: Sequana Therapeutics

A more demonstrable (though a touch more morbid) result of cold fusion
research was described in a recent J. Forensic Sci. article in which the
accidental death of a cold fusion researcher was investigated.  The
stainless steel reaction chamber exploded, flew across the lab, and struck
him in the head, and killed him instantly.  The precise cause of the
mishap was very difficult to determine, besides the excessive chamber
pressure.  

I don't mean to detract from this interesting area of research.  Maybe
it's a sign from Mother Nature that we're getting close to solving the
puzzle and She's gettin' nervous. Investigate safely!

-doug

In article <3kfk4e$pkv@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

* Note followups set to sci.physics.fusion, which is the group dedicated 
* to the discussion of these questions -- which are approaching their 
* sixth anniversary!  My, how time flies ....
* 
(excerpt deleted)
* -- 
*  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.
-- 
The above opinions are merely electrons, photons, and magnetic
domains that appear to be my own, but I'm not sure how they got
into your eyes!        djwood@ucsd.edu    /or/    Douglas_Wood@sequana.c
m
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudendjwood cudfnDouglas cudlnWood cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 4 Apr 1995 00:14:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison) says:
: >logajan says:
: >> Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
: >> poetry newsgroups.
: >> 
: >
: >I agree, John.  We knew before Tom left that Griggs was not making a public
: >claim of over-unity; but when Tom came back all he could say was that since
: >Griggs isn't claiming over-unity there is nothing to study.
: >
: >His report was interesting, but I was disappointed in this respect.

: Cary,  you should not be disappointed in my report.  You should reserve
: you disappointment for the quality level of Griggs' work.  

Tom, I think both Cary and myself are saying we are disappointed with the
circumstances of the report and wish that it could have delved deeper
into empirical issues.  It certainly isn't a comment on your veracity
or competence. 

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Greg Ewing /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 4 Apr 1995 01:44:48 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


In article <3lp8vd$j61@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|> the relative prestige of
|> publications are the underpinnings of academic legitimacy.

But if a journal is well-respected then it is well known
that it is well-respected, and there should be no need to
boast of this. A boastful statement would tend to suggest
that the journal in question is not quite as well-respected
as the boaster would wish.

Greg
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / John White /  Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: 3 Apr 1995 21:42:19 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> Once again, I find myself in the position of skeptic basher. We discussed
> peroxide years ago, and back then, I wrote "forget peroxide". I repeat that
> now. If you want to postulate something, you have to provide good reason to
> believe in it.

Here are ten good reasons for believing in peroxide:

1.  If a mundane explanation like peroxide can explain the results, then
    it is far more likely to turn out to be the correct explanation
    than radiationless fusion, shrinkies, first law violators, etc.

2.  Peroxide can store 4MJ/liter, about twice what is needed for Pons' boiling
    cells.

3.  Peroxide is made from deuterium and oxygen, which are by far the most
    common elements in the cell.

4.  Peroxide is the only mundane chemical explanation that has been
    proposed which can explain the amount of heat released in Pons' bursts.

5.  Solutions of peroxide look just like water. It doesn't smell. It
    won't be detected unless somebody tests for it.

6.  Peroxide was once manufactured commercially in electrochemical cells
    with Platinum anodes.

7.  Pons' bursts approached the 4MJ/liter limit of peroxide in 1989,
    but six years later he still hasn't exceeded that limit, even though
    extending the bursts has been one of his top priorities. 
    This strongly suggests that he is up against a hard physical limit of
    the phenomenon he is studying. This limit is consistent with peroxide.

8.  Pons' bursts always need a long precharge period, during which
    energy could be stored.

9.  Pons' best bursts are boiloff events. This is a really bizarre way
    of doing calorimetry, yet Pons does it this way because it gives
    the best bursts. The peroxide hypothesis explains why. If the
    concentration of peroxide is high enough, then as the cell
    boils the concentration will increase. This allows the rate
    of decomposition to be maintained as the cell boils dry.
    When Pons tries to extend the burst by adding water, the
    peroxide is diluted and the burst shuts down.

10. After Pons' cells boil dry, they continue produce heat for a while.
    Also, the temperature sensor, which is no longer immersed, reads
    an extremely well regulated 100C during this period. The only
    plausible way for such exact temperature regulation is for a
    percolator to be operating. Note that by "dry" Pons apparently
    means that the cathode is dry, but there is still a lot of liquid
    left in the cell. The anode, which extends further down into the
    cell, is still partially immersed. The high temperature would
    allow the anode to catalyze the decomposition of the peroxide,
    and indeed the plastic plug at the bottom of the anode was
    partially melted by the heat released. Note that for the
    percolator to operate the heat had to be released in the
    liquid. It could not have come from the dry cathode.

> Where, i.e., is the peroxide to come from?

Peroxide was once manufactured commercially in electrolytic cells. Peroxide
is made from the same elements as water, so the ingredients are there.

> Here you have a cell with 0.1M LiOD in D2O, and you electrolyse it with
> rather high overpotential.

The overpotential at the Platinum anode was the source of energy for
making peroxide in the commercial cells.

Incidentally, Pons has a lot more than LiOD and D2O in his cells. Besides
the contamination from the cell walls, etc, there is the secret ingredients
that he is said to add, but which he won't tell us about. And he has an
unknown amount of carbonate. Even closed cells have been found to be
completely neutralized by CO2 absorption (it got in through the bubbler).
Pons' cells have a large vent hole (in case a lot of stuff decides to
leave the cell in a hurry) and he keeps his lab windy (big fans to
keep the air temperature uniform). The velocity of gas flow out of
his cells is very low during the initial low current precharge.
I would not be surprised if his cells were neutralized to Li2CO3
by the end of the run.

> There is no way you'll get (after Pd loading is complete) anything other
> than oxygen and deuterium evolution.

The chemistry in electrochemical cells can be extremely complex. The
existence of the overpotentials shows that the O2 and D2 are not generated
directly, but involve unstable intermediaries that require the energy
from the overpotential to create. With all the contaminants and secret
ingredients in Pons' cells, thousands of reactions might be taking
place at various levels.


> FORGET PEROXIDE

It seems that there is a rule of thumb among electrochemists that peroxide
will never be generated in a highly alkaline cell. This may be why Pons
never suspected peroxide as the cause of his bursts or tested for it.

And this is an excellent example of why a reproducible formula is so
important to science. With a reproducible formula someone without this
preconceived notion could reproduce the bursts and test for peroxide.
And they could discover that in these heavy water cells peroxide is
indeed produced, and its decomposition is the source of the bursts.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / John White /  Re: White's peroxide thesis
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: White's peroxide thesis
Date: 3 Apr 1995 21:47:08 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> but I do know of some other cells with only milligrams of water (or gas)
> in them which produced many megajoules of energy. These examples disprove
> your thesis.

jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) replies:
> The peroxide thesis was never intended to explain the phenomena in those
> examples (which are different from Pons' burst phenomena), and thus it
> cannot be disproved by them.

jedrothwell@delphi.com replies:
> Of course it is disproved by them! It is the same phenomenon.

There is no evidence that it is the same phenomenon. The various
cold fusion experiments are all so different. There is heavy or
light water, palladium or nickel, LiOD or K2CO3, electrolysis
or gas loaded, or just stirring vigorously, etc.

If for each experiment there is a mundane explanation, then there is
no convincing evidence of something exotic. There is no need for
the explanation of one experiment to be the same as for any other.

> You cannot arbitrarily throw away data just because it disproves your
> pet theory.

An explanation for one experiment cannot be disproved by data from
another experiment which has a completely different explanation.

> You pick and choose experiments and say that you will only explain
> the easy ones.
 
Yes, you could say that. I don't know the cause of results like Arata's.
I could point out possible calorimetry errors, but these would just
be errors that I am not aware of having been ruled out. I have no reason
to believe that Arata actually made any of those errors.

But with Pons' bursts there are a number of indications pointing to
peroxide storage, and I am fairly sure that this explanation will turn
out to be the cause of his bursts.

Regarding Arata, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> It is a closed cell with a highly precise flow calorimeter. So I*V is 100
> watts, and recombination is not an issue. You cannot arbitrarily set a demand
> for excess power "many times" I*V (Arata peaked at 2 times, I believe.) This
> is a meaningless restriction.

The reason I ask for excess many times I*V is because such a result is
not likely to be calorimetry error. Thus, if it were also well beyond
the 4MJ/liter limit of chemical storage it would be a very interesting
result. And results many times I*V have been reported. Unfortunately
they don't last long enough. Also, only these higher bursts are
commercially interesting. An inexpensive and reliable device producing
three times the input energy as low grade heat would be useful for
heating homes in areas that are too cold for a heat pump. But first
this 3x heat must be sustained.

As for Arata's 2x peak, that is probably beyond calorimetry error for
his closed calorimeter. How long did this burst last, how much excess
energy did it generate, and what is the volume of Arata's electrolyte?
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / Colin Campbell /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: colinc@crl.com (Colin Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 3 Apr 1995 22:30:47 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

djwood@ucsd.edu   (Douglas J. Wood) writes: 
 
> A more demonstrable (though a touch more morbid) result of cold fusion
> research was described in a recent J. Forensic Sci. article in which the
> accidental death of a cold fusion researcher was investigated.  The
> stainless steel reaction chamber exploded, flew across the lab, and struck
> him in the head, and killed him instantly.  The precise cause of the
> mishap was very difficult to determine, besides the excessive chamber
> pressure.	

  You mean the accident at the Stanford lab here in the Bay Area? I 
thought they were pretty sure it was an example of deuterium undergoing 
normal combination with oxygen to form heavy water. Hydrogen goes bang 
when it burns contained, no matter what isotope you're burning. 


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencolinc cudfnColin cudlnCampbell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / mitchell swartz /  H2O2 - (was 'a zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H2O2 - (was 'a zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
Subject: Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 05:37:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lqbmb$r0n@jazzmin.vnet.net>
Subject: Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
John N. White [ jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net ] writes:

>>Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>> Once again, I find myself in the position of skeptic basher. We discussed
>> peroxide years ago, and back then, I wrote "forget peroxide". I repeat that
>> now. If you want to postulate something, you have to provide good reason to
>> believe in it.
>Here are ten good reasons for believing in peroxide:
>1.  If a mundane explanation like peroxide can explain the results, then
>    it is far more likely to turn out to be the correct explanation
>    than radiationless fusion, shrinkies, first law violators, etc.

Reason for considering it, not evidence.
I think Dieter is correct, and the following are some reasons why.
They are not given to deter you from considering it.

>2.  Peroxide can store 4MJ/liter, about twice what is needed for Pons' boiling
>    cells.

Reason for considering it, not evidence.


>3.  Peroxide is made from deuterium and oxygen, which are by far the most
>    common elements in the cell.

Reason for considering it, probably not evidence.


>4.  Peroxide is the only mundane chemical explanation that has been
>    proposed which can explain the amount of heat released in Pons' bursts.

So many minds, so many explanations.


>5.  Solutions of peroxide look just like water. It doesn't smell. It
>    won't be detected unless somebody tests for it.

  No.  it is pale blue, syrupy and boils at 152.C.
  Methinks in the presence of Fenton's reagent (or any bit of
iron in the solution) it decomposes and if memory serves gives off
red light thru an activated electronic state of oxygen.   


>6.  Peroxide was once manufactured commercially in electrochemical cells
>    with Platinum anodes.

   The peroxodisulfate system doesn't apply if not present, and the
anthraquinol cyclic systems use a hydrogen source.
How do you account for the high transference efficiency detected,
if your hypothesis is correct.


>7.  Pons' bursts approached the 4MJ/liter limit of peroxide in 1989,
>    but six years later he still hasn't exceeded that limit, even though
>    extending the bursts has been one of his top priorities. 
>    This strongly suggests that he is up against a hard physical limit of
>    the phenomenon he is studying. This limit is consistent with peroxide.

Reason for considering it, probably not evidence.


>8.  Pons' bursts always need a long precharge period, during which
>    energy could be stored.

Reason for considering it, not evidence.
Even a flywheel follows this.


>9.  Pons' best bursts are boiloff events. This is a really bizarre way
>    of doing calorimetry, yet Pons does it this way because it gives
>    the best bursts. The peroxide hypothesis explains why. If the
>    concentration of peroxide is high enough, then as the cell
>    boils the concentration will increase. This allows the rate
>    of decomposition to be maintained as the cell boils dry.
>    When Pons tries to extend the burst by adding water, the
>    peroxide is diluted and the burst shuts down.

The temperature would be 152 C if you were correct.

>> Where, i.e., is the peroxide to come from?
>
>Peroxide was once manufactured commercially in electrolytic cells. Peroxide
>is made from the same elements as water, so the ingredients are there.

  It comes from the water or the oxygen in a two electron reduction.
How it is made commercially is irrelevant.


>> Here you have a cell with 0.1M LiOD in D2O, and you electrolyse it with
>> rather high overpotential.

>The overpotential at the Platinum anode was the source of energy for
>making peroxide in the commercial cells.

>Incidentally, Pons has a lot more than LiOD and D2O in his cells. Besides
>the contamination from the cell walls, etc, there is the secret ingredients
>that he is said to add, but which he won't tell us about. And he has an
>unknown amount of carbonate. Even closed cells have been found to be
>completely neutralized by CO2 absorption (it got in through the bubbler).
>Pons' cells have a large vent hole (in case a lot of stuff decides to
>leave the cell in a hurry) and he keeps his lab windy (big fans to
>keep the air temperature uniform). The velocity of gas flow out of
>his cells is very low during the initial low current precharge.
>I would not be surprised if his cells were neutralized to Li2CO3
>by the end of the run.

>> There is no way you'll get (after Pd loading is complete) anything other
>> than oxygen and deuterium evolution.
>The chemistry in electrochemical cells can be extremely complex. The
>existence of the overpotentials shows that the O2 and D2 are not generated
>directly, but involve unstable intermediaries that require the energy
>from the overpotential to create. With all the contaminants and secret
>ingredients in Pons' cells, thousands of reactions might be taking
>place at various levels.

  Dieter is bringing up the transference issue in the 'steady state'.
It is very important to explain this if you are correct.

>> FORGET PEROXIDE
>
>It seems that there is a rule of thumb among electrochemists that peroxide
>will never be generated in a highly alkaline cell. This may be why Pons
>never suspected peroxide as the cause of his bursts or tested for it.

Reason for considering it.
Also the biggest reason against
is that it is complicated to concentrate H2O2
using vacuum distillation or multistage fractionation.


>And this is an excellent example of why a reproducible formula is so
>important to science. With a reproducible formula someone without this
>preconceived notion could reproduce the bursts and test for peroxide.
>And they could discover that in these heavy water cells peroxide is
>indeed produced, and its decomposition is the source of the bursts.
>-- 
>jnw@vnet.net

Reason for considering it, not evidence.
Given that the general background level is probably micromolar
to millimolar, unless you can demonstrate greater 
concentrations and thus probably not 
accountable for your hypothesis, and also
given that your hypothesized putative products (plural because of the
complex electronic and electrically reduced structures of oxygen)
should be measurable, you might try to look for and collect the evidence to
overcome the negligible foundation in its absence.

 Good luck in your search.
   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.03 / PAIN DOC /  Re: Palladium fuel
     
Originally-From: PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium fuel
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 23:03:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Why does palladium have an enormous affinity for hydrogen.
No other element seems to have that property with any
gas? Thanx in advance for the answer.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr  4 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
