1995.04.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re:       Re: Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:       Re: Fusion timetable
Date: 6 Apr 1995 00:07:14 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <199504050818.SAA07532@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>  
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
> 
> So perhaps the DOE funded programs should just surrender 1 years 
> funding, and distribute it evenly over the various alternate 
> concepts. If Paul is right, and workable solutions really are cheap 
> just because they work, then the funding that this would produce, 
> should be sufficient to decide which of the alternate schemes are the 
> most promising, and would have the benefit for the main stream 
> researchers, that it would get rid of a lot of the "unrealistic" 
> expectations generated by the proponents of alternate concepts.
> It might even end up leading to a complete change in direction.
> The above is based on my guess that there are about half a dozen 
> alternate concepts worth investigating. $350 million spread evenly 
> would be about $50-60 million each.
> 

Well, that would be tough, though, since the existing programs hardly
live high on the hog. Also, you should take a lesson from history:
the _tokamak_ was an exciting alternative concept circa 1960---that 
is what originally diverted attention from other things towards it. 
So, just beacuse something looks good at the initial investigation
level does not mean it'll be smooth sailing all the way to a commercial
plant, as the tok demonstrates. The grass is always greener... Or, perhaps
in this case, one should say the plasma is always hotter ...






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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 22:10:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I came back from tromping around the mountains of north Georgia and found the
most extraordinary message in this sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. This is so
stupid it is funny, but on the other hand I suppose I should issue a public
statement about this World Class Idiot.
 
I mentioned that I have no connection with Griggs or Hydrosonic Corp., and
ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) wrote that I stand "to make a lot of money
if gullible investors can be persuaded, however briefly, that there is
something in cold fusion therefore buy stock in your [Rothwell's] patent-
holding company."
 
I do not have any patent-holding company. I do not have any shares or interest
in any corporation involved in cold fusion research. Perhaps Johnston has me
confused with the people at ENECO. I have no shares in ENECO. Johnston would
be well advised to mind his own business and to stop publishing libelous
nonsense about me on Internet. He does not know anything at all about my
private business or my portfolio and I would never think of telling him
anything. For the record I would like to declare publicly that his statements
about me are pure fabrications. He is a stupid, irresponsible fool to make up
lies about people and publish them in public.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A Simple Question
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simple Question
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 23:04:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <R2w4-x6.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> 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.

Actually, electrostatic confinement schemes *are* still being
studied.  Ray Fonck of the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
who is one of the researchers in this area, gave a talk on 
the subject here at PPPL a few weeks ago.  The current
mainstream view on electrostatic confinement is that it's 
not likely to be "scalable" into a working reactor, but that
it might make a pretty good compact neutron source.
I don't think it's fair to say the electrostatic approaches have
been "shoved aside" by the establishment.  So far as I
know (which may not be that far), they don't have the sort
of proven scientific results they'll need to back up claims 
for greater funding.  I believe other approaches have
yielded a greater return on plasma performance per
dollar of research investment.


***************************
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:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 23:30:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3lpc6n$9i6@curly.cc.utexas.edu> John W. Cobb,
johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu writes:
> value of the development of fusion in the year 2062? Let's guess it is
> worth 10 Billion dollars. What is the present value of that future
innovation?
> well, using a 5% discount rate for 67 years in the future, that comes
out to
> around 350 million dollars, or about 1 years funding at the current
levels.
> Now consider, is 10 G$ 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. 

The world energy market is *currently* on the order of $1 Trillion.
By all accounts that number is supposed to increase substantially
(economic development in places like China and India, plus population 
growth).  If fusion is to be a "real" energy source I would claim it
should have at least a 10% share of the market.  Using only the $1 
trillion above, we get $100 billion as fusion's annual economic
value.  I think your number is at least a factor of 10 too low.
(If you want to think this through seriously, you need to factor
in that fusion may *never* be workable - let's give that a 50% 
chance - in which case the value drops to $50 billion.  But then
you also need to factor in that the energy market will at least
double, and even now it's actually greater than $1 trillion.  Plus
if it works, it's likely to capture more than 10% of the energy
market.  I think even $100 billion is probably way too low.)

So your calculation indicates that fusion would be worth
it at ten times the current U.S. investment.  Of course, the
world investment is about 4 times the U.S. investment, so
it would appear that world investment in fusion is at least
roughly commensurate with the prospective economic benefit.
(With a couple orders of magnitude each way, anyway!)

> 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$.

I don't think this point is valid.  Most successful technologies
are not based on single valuable inventions, but on a whole
host of inventions which together yield valuable products.
Nor is one really ensured adequate patent protection in the
energy arena, where it can take ten to fifteen years just
to design, site, and build a test facility - during which time 
one's patent protection will pretty much evaporate.

***************************
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:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / John Alway /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jalway@icsi.net (John Alway)
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: Thu, 06 Apr 95 02:57:33 GMT
Organization: Internet Connect Services, Inc.

psf@bevo.shell.com (Phil S. Fair) wrote:
:In article <vergonD691Gq.I13@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
:>> In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
:>> Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
:>>
:>> MUCH DELETED
:>>
:>>
:>>
:>> >   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
:>> >objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
:>> >resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
:>> >retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
:>> >president of the American Physical Society:
:>> >
:>> >    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
:>> >  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
:>> >  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
:>> >  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
:>> >  children, their children and their children's children all having this
:>> >  same beautiful experience.
:>> >    All that would end.
:>> >    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
:>> >  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
:>> >  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial.
:>> >  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
:>> >  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
:>>
:>> At first I thought you were too hard on him. I thought he was speaking
:>> humorously. But then I realized, the system REALLY works that way.
:>>
:>> So I guess the final conclusion is that "truth is oft' spoken in jest".
:>>
:>>
:          [deleted a lot more verbage...]
:>>
:Gee whiz... Haven't you ever heard of sarcasm and cynicism?  Just because
:one sees a situation and comments with satire, it doesn't mean that he
:believes the system should work that way.  I suspect that if he had
:posted his retirement speech on the internet, you would see those little
:smiley faces...8-)  I hope that everything I ever write or say with
:sarcasm doesn't get taken literally by the humor impaired.  (But then
:again, who cares)?
:__
:These opinions are solely mine and not my employer's opinions.
:
:Phil S. Fair
:Shell E&P Technology Co.
:Bellaire Technology Center           Room: BTC 1192A
:Telephone (713) 245-7766             psf@shell.com
:
:

   He addressed that issue, as you can see, and concluded that the
individual meant what he said.  So I don't get your response.


							...John Alway
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjalway cudfnJohn cudlnAlway cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / mitchell swartz /  Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
Subject: More recent references always a plus!
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 06:02:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3ltu9s$ffi@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: More recent references always a plus!
Richard Schultz schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

     >  "Pure H2O2 is a pale blue, sirupy liquid, boiling at 152.1 ....."
     >F. Albert Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 
     >Interscience (1972),  414
  >"Pure H2O2 is a colorless liquid (b. 150.2 [deg], m. -0.43 [deg]) that 
  >resembles water in many of its physical properties, although it is
  >denser (1.44 at 25 C)."
  --F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry,
   Fourth Edition ("completely revised from the original literature"), 
    New York:  Wiley, 1980, p. 495.
 >Anyone care to look it up in the most recent edition?  (Ignoring for
 >the moment that a "pale blue" liquid will probably look colorless if
 >it's dilute enough or in a small enough container.)

  Here is a reference that splits the difference   ;-)

"Liquid hydrogen peroxide is a very pale-blue and is syrupy in consistency"
"Inorganic chemistry:, Heslop, Ribinson, Elsevier, 3rd Ed. ('67)

 Why the discrepancy?

  Could be old contaminants being removed, or insufficient pathlength, 
or secondary to the photo-activity of the
material (which can decompose with photon emission), or even the
changing optical sensitivity of humans.   hmmmmmm seems unlikely  ;-)

   It could also be new contaminants which are light absorbers themselves.
Two possibilities accrue because the material is unstable to light

  The earliest optical study found today is 
Tian, Compt. rend., 151, 1040 
(1910)  which demonstrated unimolecular decomposition from light.

  Henri (ibid, 156, 1012 (1913) demonstrated that 100 molecules of H2O2 
are photodecomposed by light.  Present inhibitors have UV absorbers 
(Anderson, Taylor, J. Am. Chem Soc, 45, 521 (1923) and other substances 
to minimize chain reactions.
It may thus be that modern inhibitors prevent the photodecomposition, 
and thus minimize the red-light emission. 

 Alternatively, the control pathlength may have not used accurate controls
to correct for the red-light emission in the interrogated signal pathlength.

  Any thoughts for other possibilities?

  Best wishes.    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

  
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:24:42 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:

: There seems to be a group form of amnesia going on here 'bouts.

: There are, in fact, published claims of over-unity for the Griggs
: device.  These claims are based upon measurements made by independent
: investigators (Rothwell and Mallove.)

Independent investigators? A computer programmer and an air-conditioning
expert with a financial stake in talking up cold fusion? One of whom
used to boast that all he knew - and all he needed to know - about
calorimetry came from a book for young children?

Independent?

Investigators?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Re{ Prize for Miles helium result
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re{ Prize for Miles helium result
Date: 5 Apr 95 13:11:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9504010339.AA45919@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, 
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> Mitchell Swartz suggests Mel Miles should be awarded the prize
> for the definitive cold fusion experiment, should it ever be
> offered.  Let me suggest a few problems with that idea.
> 
> I believe we have yet to hear of any confirmation of the Miles
> result, and there have been some significant attempts at helium
> detection that should have replicated the Miles result if it
> were genuine.
> 
> As Lord Rutherford put it many years ago, the detection of
> helium in a sample does not prove that helium was produced
> in the sample.
> 
> I also doubt that Miles's experimental protocol satisfies
> the conditions for sample preparation and high D to Pd
> loading ratios that others say are essential for reliable
> onset of cold fusion.  Not to put too fine a point on it,
> I would say that Miles and McKubre have to arrive at better
> agreement between data sets before either can claim that
> cold fusion is confirmed in the details.
> 
> Dick Blue
> 

I substantially agree with Dick on this.  FYI, Prof. Hansen and I have 
completed an "Examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann
type cold fusion experiments," which should be published soon in the
Journal of Physical Chemistry.  (The paper has been peer-reviewed and
accepted.)  We reviewed their published papers in 
considerable detail, and point out inconsistencies and outright errors,
which I will not review here now since our paper is so near to publication.

Consistent with Dick Blue's remarks above, Miles et al. admit in a recent
paper (in the Maui conference proceedings):

"Because helium is present in the atmosphere...it is difficult to convince
everyone that the 4He measured in the electrolysis gas is a product of a fusion
reaction withing the cell.  it is indeed a very challenging experimental problem
to clearly establish the production of 4He from Pd/D2O cells.  This situation
is compounded by difficulties in obtaining large excess power effects in these
experiments."

Of course, these admissions are a weakening of earlier bold claims of Miles et
al. of helium-4 production commensurate with excess power production.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 /  jonesse@plasma /  Reason for inconsistent cf results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reason for inconsistent cf results
Date: 5 Apr 95 13:20:08 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Some cold fusion experiments show excess heat without x-rays
or neutrons (e.g., McKubre), another shows tritium only (e.g. Claytor, Will), 
another shows helium but no tritium or neutrons (e.g. Miles), and so on.

The reason for the evident inconsistencies is clearly (IMO) that it is 
difficult to get different instruments to show even small fluctuations 
at the same time. 

{ 8^)=| 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 06 Apr 1995 12:27:07 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <D6JJyA.B3E@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

> >> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
> >> >    What type will it be?

> >Maybe, but I don't find the need for steady state to be compelling. An
> >ignited reactor will have a pulse length of many hours, and the hour
> >or less to recharge the current drive flux can be bridged over with
> >thermal storage. The cycle fatigue of the structure will be determined
> >by the rare occasions that the reactor has to be brought down to room
> >temperature rather than the few degrees swing during recharging.
> 
> Art, that seems to give the device a duty cycle of 2/3 or maybe 3/4,
> which means the "off power" loss time for power production should be 
> made up from that thermal reservoir as well as needed recharge energy.  
When I said "many hours", I was thinking 8 to 16, giving a duty cycle
of at least 89% and full operation during peak demand hours. Either
way, I don't see the duty factor as making or breaking the concept.

> Also, there are other fatigue modes that you might have missed.
What do you have in mind? It's hard to talk about modes that have
not occurred to anyone.

> >This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
> >securely stored off-site. ...
> 
> If you can get it off site.  Hydrogen diffuses and embrittles, and
> tritium is likely worse over a period due to additional activation 
> damage.
Hydrogen (all isotopes) are somewhat more difficult to handle than,
say, natural gas, but the technology is mature. Activation due to
tritium decay is negligible since the low energy beta hardly
penetrates. Somewhat more of a problem is the bubbles that develop
from the decay product helium.

> >I'd put my money on plasma facing components (or at least divertor
> >plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
> >soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).
> 
> Tungsten (Wolfram) nuclei also absorb edge runaways and becomes 
> radioactive.   Even small portions of eroded tungsten also contains a 
> bevy of electrons for inducing edge cooling.  
> So, I agree with John.
Erosion during disruptions, activation by neutrons, oxidation and
volitalization during a loss of vacuum while hot, and eddy current
forces can be added to your list. Still nobody knows whether graphite
or tungsten or both or neither will be a suitable material. This fall
the graphite divertor tiles of ASDEX Upgrade will be coated with
tungsten so we can answer some of these questions. At least Alcator
C-Mod has had good experience with their plasma facing components out
of molybdenum.

> >           . . ..       ..  .  . .      .. .             . .      I
> >also fear that another step may be needed, call it a prototype, built
> >after DEMO demonstrates tritium breeding and electricity production,
> >but still covering so much new ground that it will not in itself be
> >economical. It could still fit into John Cobb's timetable if you eat
> >up some of his 15 years contingency and start the DEMO design before
> >materials testing and concept improvement experiments are completed.
> 
> But Art, that roof shingling action (starting "y" before finishing and
> fully analyzing "X")  is what has put us in this predicament, with loads 
> of tokamaks   (now only tokamaks!) that have learned (or at least have 
> incorporated) LITTLE or NOTHING from each of their respective previous 
> versions.
I think the procedure has been fairly efficient. At least we're happy
with the design of ASDEX Upgrade and JET turned out OK. TFTR, of
course, wishes it had a non-circular cross section, and that DIII-D is
such a useful machine is due more to luck than foresight. In any case,
overlapping is better than turning your physicists out on the street
while your engineers work and vice versa. Another way to do it is to
bet on two horses, like Garching did with stellarators and tokamaks.

> Wouldn't you want your fusion thingy whatever it is to be capable
> of driving manned planetary missions???
I'd also like it to run my teleporter and mix me a dry martini.

-- Art Carlson --

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: White's peroxide thesis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: White's peroxide thesis
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 09:41:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John N. White <jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net> writes:
 
>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?
 
That burst was for 17 hours. Now I have the numbers right in front of me:
This was during the 3000 hour excess heat run, which was positive the whole
time, so energy storage is ruled out. Before and after the large burst, input
was 47 W, output 97 W. During the 17 hour burst, input remained at 47 W and
output climbed to 144 W.
 
I do not know the volume of the electrolyte, but as I pointed out, it would
have to be 20 liters to allow 200 MJ of storage, and I am sure it was much
less than that! I will ask Arata how much it was when I see him at ICCF5 next
week.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
Date: 6 Apr 1995 13:57:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <D6LnFG.Mx1@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Any thoughts for other possibilities?

(1) The one that I posted originally: whether it looks colorless or pale blue
depends on how much of it you're looking at.  (E.g. compare the color of
a glass of water to the color of Crater Lake.)

(2) The obvious answer is the other one that has been posted, namely that
the earlier researchers used impure samples (and note that none of the 
sources Swartz cites for the blue color postdate the one I posted that
calls it colorless).  This answer would imply that Swartz made a mistake,
however, and that's something that never happens -- at least to hear him
tell it.  Given that (as I posted) the later editions of Cotton and Wilkinson
are revised on the basis of literature published since earlier ones, I
find Swartz's feeble attempt (the earlier researchers had the pure samples,
and the later ones the pure samples) possible, but extremely unlikely.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:53:24 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <3ljvor$2co@jazzmin.vnet.net>, jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N.
White) wrote:
> 
> From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)

> 
> One experiment used a Pt wire anode (36 gauge) and a graphite cathode
> (extracted from a #2 pencil with the help of a propane torch). The
> electrolyte was H2O with some NaHCO3. A fairly high current density was
> used for a couple of days. After that the Pt anode was visibly discolored,
> with a brownish coating. When the anode was placed in a solution of
> 3% hydrogen peroxide no bubbling was seen. In its original state the anode
> would produce a steady plume of small bubbles. Heating the anode to red
> heat in a propane flame removed the coating and completely restored its
> ability to decompose peroxide.
> 

		Electrochemists take special care to make sure everything is clean
(triply distilled water, careful electrode preps, etc. Some reactions are
more sensitive than others. If impurities do exist, they are likely to
accumulate on the electrode surfaces, especially after long electrolysis
times, and effectively poison the catalytic surface. Consider the electrode
to be a catalyst. The surface is VERY important. Part of the art of echem.

> 
> These were just Q&D experiments in my basement with materials on hand.
> They were done over a year ago and I can't find my notes, so this is
> from memory. They do show, however, that coatings can form on the
> electrodes which dramatically affect the chemistry of peroxide.
> The definitive test would be for Pons to test for peroxide just
> before one of his boil-off events. This would only require dipping
> a clean piece of Pt wire into the electrolyte and seeing if bubbles
> formed. Alternatively, Pons could release his recipe, complete with
> his secret ingredients, so someone else could reproduce the bursts and
> do the test.
> -- 
> jnw@vnet.net

		I'm sorry, I have to agree with Dieter here about the peroxide theory.It
is pretty reactive under electrolysis conditions. In fact there has been a
lot of work by echemists to design electrodes that will produce peroxide
preferentially. It is hard to do. 
	 I don't follow the cf literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if the
"secret ingrediants" were added to increase the overvoltage for the H2
evolution reaction on Pd, to allow increased hydrogen loading. H2 evolution
is a reaction that echemists often try to make more difficult because it
interferes with other reactions of interest.
Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
Date: 6 Apr 1995 16:19:27 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <D6LnFG.Mx1@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
wrote:

[deletia]
> 
> "Liquid hydrogen peroxide is a very pale-blue and is syrupy in consistency"
> "Inorganic chemistry:, Heslop, Ribinson, Elsevier, 3rd Ed. ('67)
> 
>  Why the discrepancy?
> 
>   Could be old contaminants being removed, or insufficient pathlength,
> or secondary to the photo-activity of the
> material (which can decompose with photon emission), or even the
> changing optical sensitivity of humans.   hmmmmmm seems unlikely  ;-)
> 
>    It could also be new contaminants which are light absorbers themselves.
> Two possibilities accrue because the material is unstable to light
> 
>   The earliest optical study found today is
> Tian, Compt. rend., 151, 1040
> (1910)  which demonstrated unimolecular decomposition from light.
> 
>   Henri (ibid, 156, 1012 (1913) demonstrated that 100 molecules of H2O2
> are photodecomposed by light.  Present inhibitors have UV absorbers
> (Anderson, Taylor, J. Am. Chem Soc, 45, 521 (1923) and other substances
> to minimize chain reactions.
> It may thus be that modern inhibitors prevent the photodecomposition,
> and thus minimize the red-light emission.
> 
>  Alternatively, the control pathlength may have not used accurate controls
> to correct for the red-light emission in the interrogated signal pathlength.
> 
>   Any thoughts for other possibilities?
> 

It has been mentioned that H2O2 is syrupy and light blue in color only in
the anhydrous state.  The only times I have worked with it (except for the
uses of a 5% solution from time to time in the home), I have noticed no
blue color, nor viscosity greater than water.

There would bo no reason whatsoever to think that any peroxide produced in
a CF cell would be anhydrous.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 12:51:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "2.  Peroxide can store 4MJ/liter, about twice what is needed for Pons'
     boiling cells."
 
That is incorrect. Pons' cell remained hot for hours after the boil off event.
If the heat had been caused by burning peroxide, the calibrations show that
the cell would have cooled down immediately after the boil off event.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / James Stolin /  Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Are "More recent references always a plus!"?
Date: 6 Apr 1995 19:24:15 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
>
>  Any thoughts for other possibilities?

It now appears from someone elses comments that the blue color may be 
apparent only in the anhydrous state.  However, another thought occured 
to me.  It might depend whether samples were viewed in flourescent, 
incandescent or natural sunlight and whether the color is transmissive or 
reflective.  See, I still remember important "frame of reference" 
lectures from over 20 years ago.  <G>
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
(who nowadays mostly ponders the physics of getting a computer AND THE 
BOX into a compact car)


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Stefan Hartmann /  TMI and PM_Square explanations !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
hysics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: TMI and PM_Square explanations !
Date: 06 Apr 1995 22:17:00 +0100

Hi,
I received this from an "anonymous" friend. Please read it and let me know
what you think about this theory for the explanation of the TOMI and PM_Square
effect !



Irreversible Processes in Fields
================================

It is well known theory that the thermodynamic potentials go to
an extremum. This is regarded as equivalent to Planck's 2nd law
although the complete equivalence between both formulations of
the second law never have been proved generally, especially if we
apply the extremum principle of the thermodynamic potentials to
electromagnetic fields. In this article we investigate this
question.

I. Irreversible Processes in Vapour-Liquid Mixtures

We begin here with a well known and quite trivial example. We
regard two cylinder volumes connected by a tap in the middle.
Both the volumes can be set by moving a piston up and down into
or out of the volume.  With this experimental setup we proceed
the following isothermic irreversible cycle,
comp fig.1a):
We take a fluid (for example water) being at the dew line of the
phase diagram. We expand both the pistons isothermically from
point 1 to point 2. So liquid condenses and is collected in the
lower cylinder. Now the tap is closed and both the volumes are
recompressed at equal pressures until the starting volume is
reached again. Now we regard the question whether Planck's law is
fulfilled. This question can be answered by writing the 2nd law
for free energy which states that the free energy F tends to be a
minimum. Therefore, if we leave the minimum in doing the cycle
          Fstart-Fend = - circle integral P dV > 0

must hold because the cycle is isothermal (dT=0)  with no matter
exchange (dn=0). The orientation of the integral shows that
Planck's second law holds, comp. fig.1b).

II. Irreversible Processes in Fields

a) General
According Landau and Lifshitz (1) the free energy of a system
including electric fields and linear dielectrics is defined by
     F'(V,T,D) = F(V,T) + 1/(8*Pi*eps) Int D^2 dV

The Legendre transform of this potential is

     F''(V,T,E) = F(V,T) - eps/(8*Pi) Int E^2 dV

Both these definitions are not useful for thermodynamics
because they are non-homologous functions regarding the molar
ratios. Therefore, the following definitions are used and
specified for constant dielectrics

f'(V,T,P) = f (V,T) + 1/(8*Pi) Int E dP = f + 1/(8*Pi*Xi) P^2
f''(V,T,E) = f(V,T) - 1/(8*Pi) Int P dE = f - Xi/(8*Pi) E^2
Regarding the 2nd derivative of the electric variable of both
these potentials we see that for a constant homogene dielectrics
f'(V,T,P) approaches a minimum and f''(V,T,E) approaches a
maximum in the equilibrium state, if Xi > 0. Similar
considerations hold for magnetic fields as well.
b) Mixing Processes
Now, similar like in section I, we investigate an isothermic and
isochoric cycle if an intense field is applied to a non ideal -
non linear binary dielectric liquid (2).
We start at the phase separation line at low field and apply a
stronger field. Then demixing of the solution occurs. We close
the tap and discharge the field. In the endpoint of the cycle at
lower field we reopen the tap and return to equilibrium. Because
we leave the equilibrium in performing the cycle the unequality

                df'' = - circle integral P dE < 0

holds according the last lines of section II a). Regarding the
orientation of this integral we realize that it is a negative
hysteresis relative to the usual ferroelectric hysteresis.
Therefore, our consideration predicts a violation of Planck's
second law  for electrically induced irreversibilities. The
irreversibility goes the other way round according to the Gibbs
formalism contrary to Planck's 2nd law.
c) Permanent Magnet Motors
In Landau/Lifshitz (1) there exists a proof which shows that if
we introduce a para- or ferromagnetic body into a fixed magnetic
field (j=constant) the following relation holds:

                    df' = - M dH

Because df' approaches a maximum we interprete this equation that
a self accelerating perpetual motion is possible in a magnetic
field as an irreversibility.
Therefore, in order to find an example we first rule out the
conditions under which a perpetuum mobile is impossible. This is
always the case if the magnetic field can be described as a
potential field. According Jackson(3) a magnetic field of a
closed loop or the field of a hard permanent ferromagnet can
formally be decribed by a potential. This means that rot B
vanishes. This has as a consequence that a perpetuum mobile
acceleration of a magnetic charge is impossible.Therefore, the
question arises whether there exists the
possibility to break this zero rot B - field. The question can be
answered positively.  Using by Mu metal shieldings a non zero rot
B field can be generated from a potential field by shielding off
the unwanted parts of the field . We illustrate this idea by the
following axial motor construction proposal which is derived by
us from the linear Harris TMI set up (4), comp. fig.3)+b), which
works and which has been confirmed and discussed by different
persons(4,5). We do not claim that our proposal is a perpetuum
mobile.
We use a cylindrical tube of Mu metal as housing for the motor.
In the housing tube we have a tube of lower diameter made from
conducting material having the same axis as the housing tube. A
current flows in the inner tube along the length equally
distributed across the thicknell of the wall.The common axis of
both these cylinders consist of a wire
carrying a current flowing in the opposite direction relative to
the current tube. If we look at the configuration of the field we
have a circular non vanishing rot B field in one direction near
the wall and a circular B field in the opposite direction near
the central wire. Now we use the wire as an axis of a rotor which
carries at least two symmetrically balanced permanent magnets
rods whose north poles point radially and the south poles
axially. The north poles are standing under the influence of the
B field near the wall, the south pole feels the opposite field
near by the wire. So a permanent torque is exerted on the rotor
which begins to spin around the central wire as the axis. We see
that our motor works only with permanent fields and needs no
brushes.
Therefore, the question arises: Is it not possible to use
permanent magnets + Mu metal shields to replace the current wires
by permanent magnets generating circular non vanishing rot B
fields of opposite orientation to get the rotor spinning, comp.
fig.5a).  Similar constructions are already patented
and can be found in the literature (6), comp. fig. 5b).
Furthermore, we emphasize that until today there exist no
generally accepted magnetic force law between differential
current loops. Only for closed current loop the situation is
clear, because all the different differential form coincide in
one. Different forms have been proposed by Biot Savart (7),
Ampere (7) (includes actio and reactio and conservation of
angular momentum), Whittaker (8) (includes only action=reaction),
Aspden (7) (includes only conservation of angular momentum) , and
Marinov (9). Marinov claims that he would have proved
experimentally his form as the correct one. Therefore, there seems
to be an interesting field where important
questions can be solved.

Bibliography:

1) Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M.
   Electrodynamics of Continous Media
   Pergamon, Oxford, 1984

2) Wirtz D., Fuller G.G.  Phys.Rev.Lett.71, 2236, (1993)
   Debye P., Kleboth K. J.Chem.Phys.42, 3155, (1965)

3) Jackson,J.D.
   Classical Electrodynamics 2nd edition
   John Wiley, New York, 1975

4) Decker, J. BBS Keelynet PO-Box Mesquite Texas USA 75187
   Modem ..214 324 3501 Filename: TOMIBILD.ASC

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI device, free energy device ?
   24.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

5) anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk   TMI device, free energy device?
   26.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI + MRA updates, free energy
   25.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TOMI enhanced ! Free emergy device !
   31.3.95 in CL.ENERGY.ALTERNATIVEN

   prebys@puhep1.princeton.edu   TMI device, free energy device ?
   25.2.95 in SCI.ENERGY

6) Johnson, H.R. Permanent magnet motor  U.S.Patent No. 4.151.431
   Apr.24,1979

7) Aspden, Harold Physics without Einstein  Southampton 1969
   Aspden, Harold Modern Aether Physics     Southampton 1975

8) Whittaker, Edmund Sir
   A history of the theories of Aether and Electricity   Vol I
   The classical theories Humanities Press  New York  1975

9) International Glasnost Journal of Fundamental Physics   Vol.3, No.11,
   Marinov, Stefan; p.18
_________________________________________________________________

Figures:

      ||                      ||                   ||
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
   |======|                |      |             |======|
   |      |                |      |             |      |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
     |  |---|                |--|-|               |--|-|
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
   |      |                |      |             |//////|
   |======|                |//////|             |======|
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
      ||                      ||                   ||

      1                        2                    3


fig. 1a): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion, condensation of liquid 2
separating volumes by closing the tap 2-3 recompression 3 opening
the tap, work has to be added to proceed the cycle



   P   ^     3 ._
   r   |       | |_
   e   |       |   |_
   s   |       |     |_ 3
   s   |     1 ._     |_
   u   |         |_     |<
   r   |           |__    |_
   e   |              |_>_  |__
       |                  |___.|
       |                        2
       |
       |
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                          Volume


fig. 1b): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
Pressure-volume diagram: 1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion,
condensation of liquid 2 separating volumes by closing the tap
2-3 recompression 3 opening the tap, work has to be added to
proceed the cycle




       ^
   P   |
   o   |
   l   |
   a   |
   r   |                          2
   i   |                   -------.
   s   |                __|   ____|
   a   |        1   _>_|  _<_|
   t   |        .__|   __|
   i   |        |   __|
   o   |        .__|
   n   |        3
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                   electric field




fig.2: isothermal cycle with electrically induced irreversibility
1 starting at the phase separation line with low field
1-2 applying a field 2 closing the tap 2-3 dicharging of the high
field 3 opening of the tap and returning to starting point 1A negative
hysteresis is predicted according the Gibbs formalism.




                    _ _ _ _ _
       Top view  S |_|_|_|_|_| N   <--------moveable ROLLER magnet

 direction     S  |<--track-->|  N
 of ROLLER  ____________|____________
     |      |  ___|     |      |___  |
     |      | |___|  (start)   |___| |
     |      | |___|            |___| |        RUNNERS
     |      | |___|  incline   |___| <--------roll of magnets,positioned at
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the same angle as the slope of
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the incline
    \|/     | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |  N  |            | S   |
            |     |   decline  |     |<-------no magnets here, but not as much
            |  S  |            | N   |        space between the rolls as shown
            |  ___|____________|___  |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|  incline   |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |     |            |     |
            |  N  |   decline  | S   |
            |     |            |     |
            |     |____________|     |
            |        (finish)        |<-------ROLLER winds up here
            |________________________|




fig.3a) the TMI device, top view
the two magnets along the incline are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.


Side view ! (enhanced version !)
===========


     ROLLER starts here
         \|/
          |     ----------------> direction of moveable magnetic ROLLER
          |     /\              /\
          |   /    \          /    \
          | /        \      /        \
          /            \  /            \
        /-------------- /  -------------- <--------Magnetic ROLLER ends up
      /               /                            here



fig.3b) the TMI device, side view comp. textthe two magnets along
the incline are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.

                    ___________________________
                  /                             \
                /                                 \
 Mu metal     /                                     \
 housing    /                                         \
          /                                             \
        /                                                 \
      /                   _______________                   \
    /                   /    ------->     \                   \
   |       current    /      B-fields       \                  |
   |          tube  /           |             \                |
   |              /             |               \              |
   |             |    /---------|----------\     |             |
   |             |  / _______  <--  ________ \   |             |
   |             |  ||S     N| /-\ |N      S||   |             |
   |             |  ||_______| \-/ |________||   |             |
   |             |  \       axis wire        /   |             |
   |             |    \--------------------/     |             |
   |              \           rotor              /             |
   |               \    \                      /               |
   |                \     \-->               /                 |
    \                 \ ___________________/                  /
      \                                                     /
        \                                                 /
          \                                             /
            \                                         /
              \                                     /
                \                                 /
                  \_____________________________/

fig.4 magnetic motor with no brushes; top view
the magnet charges on the rotor are spinning around the axis wire
in the stationary double circular and opposite rot B fields of
the wire and the current tube.

fig.5a) our magnetic motor proposal using only permanent magnets
the central wire is replaced by an inner ring consisting of
permanent magnets and Mu metal shields generating an non
vanishing B-field; the current tube is replaced by an outer ring
of permanent magnets and Mu metal shields. the rotor is the same
as in fig. 4. The field configuration seen by the rotor is in
effect the same as in fig.4., only both the opposite non
vanishing rot B fields of the stator are generated by permanent
magnets. Unwanted parts of the field are shielded by Mu metal. It
is clear that the configuration can be multiplied to enforce the
power by taking more circles. Magnets similar as used by Johnson
are recommended for the stator fields, comp fig.5b). Using
electromagnets instead of permanent magnets would enhance power.

fig.5b) the Johnson motor, US Patent Nr. 4,151,431
permanent magnets as stator, rotor with non vanishing
rot B -field , see original patent


_________________________________________________________________
disclaimer regarding employer
Anti-Copyright  -  can be copied by everybody for nothing

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 6 Apr 1995 21:58:31 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3lv5tk$h3u@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James  
Stolin) writes:
> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
> > <duty cycle post snipped>
> 
> Paul,
> 
>    All you need is more than one fusion reactor if you have less than 
> 100% duty cycle.  If the duty cycle is 50%, you build two reactors.  If 
> duty cycle is 33%, you use three reactors.  Better yet, have a "spare" so 
> you can provide downtime for maintenance.  Use a "cookie cutter" approach 
> to keep design costs the same for one or one thousand reactors.  Size 
> and/or cost will be the limiting factor with this approach.  However, the 
> redundancy of multiple reactors should be readily apparent. 

Yes---but with projected tokamak, cost limits you to N reactors
to comprise the 100% duty cycle, where N is _at most_ 1 :-).

Basically, a single projected tokamak reactor has to run at 80% or better.
Talking about 50% duty cycles will get you laughed at (or worse :-)




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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Jeff Greason /  Re: A Simple Question
     
Originally-From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simple Question
Date: 6 Apr 1995 15:51:55 GMT
Organization: Intel PTD, Aloha, OR

In article <1995Apr4.230441.18045@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:
>Actually, electrostatic confinement schemes *are* still being
>studied.  Ray Fonck of the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
>who is one of the researchers in this area, gave a talk on 
>the subject here at PPPL a few weeks ago.  The current
>mainstream view on electrostatic confinement is that it's 
>not likely to be "scalable" into a working reactor, but that
>it might make a pretty good compact neutron source.

I don't see why this would be true; as far as I can tell
(admittedly, I'm an amateur in this field), these devices
work at least as well at a small scale as they do on a 
larger scale.  Why do they need to be scaled up?  Isn't
there a percieved use for fusion powerplants on the
10's-100's of kW scale?  Or is there some reason you can
see that we can't easily reach breakeven with a small
electrostatic confinement device?

Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
     and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
  <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com>  and do the other things, not because they 
  <greason@ix.netcom.com>     are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengreason cudfnJeff cudlnGreason cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.06 / Stefan Hartmann /  PM_Square ! Permanent Magnet Powered Motor !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
hysics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: PM_Square ! Permanent Magnet Powered Motor !
Date: 06 Apr 1995 22:36:00 +0100

PM_Square enhanced : The new free energy generation device !
============================================================

Latest news:
------------

1. MPEG movie now available at:

194.77.35.1   in pub/harti/energy/PM_Square/pm_sqlin.mpg  about 485 KBytes.
(was now moved to this directory from pub/incoming )

Shows, how the Linear Mode works with 3 stator tracks ! This proves, that it  
can go through multiple stator tracks and still gain speed !

Could be used to proppel a train along a railway !


2. A new Enhanced Linear version shown down there !

=====================================================================

Hi,

do you remember the TOMI (also called TMI) device ?

Well, I have talked a lot with the inventor and another "magnet freak"
during the last weekend on the design and we found the solution how to power  
a motor just via using Permanent Magnets !

I will call this design from now on:


PM_Square  = (PM)^2

Permanent Magnet Powered Motor !
=         =      =       =


Well, here it is how it is working:


I will first describe a Linear Motor design and later post a few MPEG movies  
of the enhanced rotor version experiments...

I will publish all my results and findings, so you are ready to duplicate  it  
yourself and prove me right or wrong. This way the basic design goes to the  
Public Domain and can't be bought out or will be suppressed...
I just claim the inventor rights on the Angle Steel add-on design !

Please copy this file to all people, which care about environment pollution  
and want to have a so called "free energy" machine.


For the full understanding of this PM_Square design you should have read the  
TOMI description !

Here the PM_Square design goes:


The most important enhancements over the TOMI design are introduced via
2 angle steel plates at the endings on each track-magnet (in the TOMI  
description called: Runner-magnet)
I will call these "Runner-Magnets" from now on Stator Track-magnets, because  
they don't "run" , but are just the Stator-Magnets, which build the track !

Okay, so how are these 2 Angle Steel plates fitted to the Track-Magnets ?

Here is a simple ASCII drawing:


Top View
========



     ____                                   ____
    |               track magnets (stator)      |   <-----Angle Steel
    |_____ _____ ___________ _____ ______ ______|         at each ending !
    |     |     |     |     |     |      |      |
    |N   S|N   S|N   S|N   S|N   S|N    S|N    S|
    |_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|______|______|


  ------->| Roller Magnet dropped into the track
            from above at 90 degrees at this place !

            -----
           |  N  |
           |  S  |
            -----
           |  N  |
           |  S  |  Roller Magnet,
            -----   rolls this way -------->
           |  N  |  along out of the track !
           |  S  |
            -----
           |  N  |
           |  S  |
            -----

  ------->| Roller Magnet dropped into the track
            from above at 90 degrees at this place !

     _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______
    |     |     |     |     |     |      |      |
    |S   N|S   N|S   N|S   N|S   N|S    N|S    N|
    |_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|______|______|
    |                                           |  <------Angle Steel
    |____          track magnets (stator)  _____|         at each ending !







This is the Top View of the Linear Motor design !
All magnets used are circular magnets. So the Roller Magnet can roll through  
the track ! The number of stator track magnets can vary, but should not be  
too many , cause it weakens the flux inside the track.
Go for around 7 to 10 magnets first. (7 are shown over here !)


By using Angle Steel plates of ST37 or ST100 (thickness of about 1 to 2.5  
mm), one can force the magnetic flux at the endings of the permanent magnet  
Stator Track to be going the right way!

In this case it prevents to pull the Roller Magnet back into the track, when  
it leaves the track at the right side !
You can also try to use a "V"-shaped placement of the Stator Track magnets  
(not putting them in parallel as shown, but at an opening angle of maybe 5 to  
10 degrees), which I can't draw over here with this simple ASCII-"art"!

This enables the Roller magnet to get out of the Stator Track at the ending  
even better and the killing force at the end of the track is far more weaker  
!



One has to drop the Roller Permanent Magnet for the best performance  
(acceleration) into the track at around 90 degrees (also 45 degrees would  
still work!) at around 1/5 to 1/4 length of the track.
This way, the Roller Magnet is just pulled into the track and don't have to  
go via the slight repulsion gate at the entrance of the track at the very  
left side !

With using the steel plates fitted to the end of the track magnets you can  
also try to push the Roller Magnet into the track at the left side, but it  
will almost kill the received acceleration force from the previous track !
But with using the Angle Steel plates, this killing effect is much less, than  
without using the Angle Steel plates...
So the secret to a Real Working Linear PM_Square motor are just these
Angle Steel Magnetic Flux guidance plates !



The best design to get the Roller going through an unlimited number of Magnet  
Stator tracks would be the following design:


Side View:
==========



          Roller Magnet climbing the hills -----> going this direction -->
          |
          |                        wooden cardboard downhill track
          |                        | (without any stator magnets !)
          |                        |
          |                __      |                           __
          |               /  \     |                          /  \
\         |             /--.  \   \|/                       /--.  \
 \        |          /     ;   \                         /     ;   \
  \      \|/      /       /      \                    /       /     \
   \           /                   \               /                 \
    \     o /   ^         ^          \          /                     \
     \   /      |         |            \     /                         \ /
      /         |         |               /                             /
   /            |         |            /                              /
 /              |         |          /                              /
<___            |         |         <___                           <__
                |         |
   ^            |         |
   |            |         Angle Steel
   Angle Steel  |
                Stator magnet track
______________________________________________________________________





This Linear Motion Permanent Magnet Motor design should really work.
It uses the gravitational force to go downhill into the next magnetic Stator  
Track.
In this Side View only the front Stator magnet is shown with the Angle Steel  
at each end with the "wrong" angle drawn, due to the bad perspectivic drawing  
view !(I am not able to draw it better with using this ASCII- "art" !  
Normally in the Side View the Angle Steel Plates would point into direction  
of your face and not downwards ! But I have drawn it downwards to make it  
clear, where the placement of the Angle Steel is located !)


Have a look again above to the Top View and it will getting clear to you,
how the Angle Steel has to be placed !


Enhanced Linear Motion version:
===============================

Side View:
----------




      Roller Magnet climbing the hills -----> going this direction -->
      |
      |                              wooden cardboard downhill track
      |                              | (without any stator magnets !)
      |                              |
      |                              |
      |        #                 #   |             #                 #
      |      /                 /     |           /                 /
      |    /\                /\      |         /\                /\
     \|/ /    \            /    \    |       /    \            /    \
      o/        \        /        \ \|/    /        \        /        \
 \   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \   /
  \/                \/                \/                \/                \/
 /                 /                 /                 /                 /
#                 #                 #                 #                 #
                 /|\
                  |_______ Angle Steel plates at each ending of the            
                           Stator Magnets !



In this enhanced Linear version you use only the "phase" inside the stator
track, that really accelerates the roller magnet. The fields at the beginning
and ending of the Stator magnet track are not used !
The roller magnet can thus come into and out of the accelerating Stator Track
without any killing force. The roller will just be accelerated each time
it goes into the next hill !


Okay, so far for now.

Please try to duplicate this Linear Motion design of PM_Square and let me  
know, if it will work for you.

If you have any question, please drop a note to my email account at:

harti@contrib.de   or

harti@b-2.de.contrib.net

You can also have a look at my FTP site at:

ftp://ftp.b-2.de.contrib.net  in pub/harti/energy/PM_Square
(194.77.35.1)  or into pub/incoming


There will be soon a few MPEG movies of my experiments with this
PM_Square device !



Theoretical explanation:
========================

I received this from an "anonymous" friend. Please read it and let me know  
what you think about this theory for the explanation of the TOMI and  
PM_Square effect !

I believe, that with using Permanent Magnets the Zero Point Energy can  
betapped ! (See Dr. Harraold Putthof's explanation of Zero Point Energy)



Irreversible Processes in Fields
================================

It is well known theory that the thermodynamic potentials go to
an extremum. This is regarded as equivalent to Planck's 2nd law
although the complete equivalence between both formulations of
the second law never have been proved generally, especially if we
apply the extremum principle of the thermodynamic potentials to
electromagnetic fields. In this article we investigate this
question.

I. Irreversible Processes in Vapour-Liquid Mixtures

We begin here with a well known and quite trivial example. We
regard two cylinder volumes connected by a tap in the middle.
Both the volumes can be set by moving a piston up and down into
or out of the volume.  With this experimental setup we proceed
the following isothermic irreversible cycle, comp fig.1a):We take a fluid  
(for example water) being at the dew line of the
phase diagram. We expand both the pistons isothermically from
point 1 to point 2. So liquid condenses and is collected in the
lower cylinder. Now the tap is closed and both the volumes are
recompressed at equal pressures until the starting volume is
reached again. Now we regard the question whether Planck's law is
fulfilled. This question can be answered by writing the 2nd law
for free energy which states that the free energy F tends to be a
minimum. Therefore, if we leave the minimum in doing the cycle
          Fstart-Fend = - circle integral P dV > 0

must hold because the cycle is isothermal (dT=0)  with no matter
exchange (dn=0). The orientation of the integral shows that
Planck's second law holds, comp. fig.1b).

II. Irreversible Processes in Fields

a) General
According Landau and Lifshitz (1) the free energy of a system
including electric fields and linear dielectrics is defined by
     F'(V,T,D) = F(V,T) + 1/(8*Pi*eps) Int D^2 dV

The Legendre transform of this potential is

     F''(V,T,E) = F(V,T) - eps/(8*Pi) Int E^2 dV

Both these definitions are not useful for thermodynamics
because they are non-homologous functions regarding the molar
ratios. Therefore, the following definitions are used and
specified for constant dielectrics

f'(V,T,P) = f (V,T) + 1/(8*Pi) Int E dP = f + 1/(8*Pi*Xi) P^2
f''(V,T,E) = f(V,T) - 1/(8*Pi) Int P dE = f - Xi/(8*Pi) E^2

Regarding the 2nd derivative of the electric variable of both
these potentials we see that for a constant homogene dielectrics
f'(V,T,P) approaches a minimum and f''(V,T,E) approaches a
maximum in the equilibrium state, if Xi > 0. Similar
considerations hold for magnetic fields as well.

b) Mixing Processes
Now, similar like in section I, we investigate an isothermic and
isochoric cycle if an intense field is applied to a non ideal -
non linear binary dielectric liquid (2).
We start at the phase separation line at low field and apply a
stronger field. Then demixing of the solution occurs. We close
the tap and discharge the field. In the endpoint of the cycle at
lower field we reopen the tap and return to equilibrium. Because
we leave the equilibrium in performing the cycle the unequality

                df'' = - circle integral P dE < 0

holds according the last lines of section II a). Regarding the
orientation of this integral we realize that it is a negative
hysteresis relative to the usual ferroelectric hysteresis. Therefore, our  
consideration predicts a violation of Planck's
second law  for electrically induced irreversibilities. The
irreversibility goes the other way round according to the Gibbs
formalism contrary to Planck's 2nd law.

c) Permanent Magnet Motors
In Landau/Lifshitz (1) there exists a proof which shows that if
we introduce a para- or ferromagnetic body into a fixed magnetic
field (j=constant) the following relation holds:

                    df' = - M dH

Because df' approaches a maximum we interprete this equation that
a self accelerating perpetual motion is possible in a magnetic
field as an irreversibility.
Therefore, in order to find an example we first rule out the
conditions under which a perpetuum mobile is impossible. This is
always the case if the magnetic field can be described as a
potential field. According Jackson(3) a magnetic field of a
closed loop or the field of a hard permanent ferromagnet can
formally be decribed by a potential. This means that rot B
vanishes. This has as a consequence that a perpetuum mobile
acceleration of a magnetic charge is impossible.Therefore, the question  
arises whether there exists the
possibility to break this zero rot B - field. The question can be
answered positively.  Using by Mu metal shieldings a non zero rot
B field can be generated from a potential field by shielding off
the unwanted parts of the field . We illustrate this idea by the
following axial motor construction proposal which is derived by
us from the linear Harris TMI set up (4), comp. fig.3)+b), which
works and which has been confirmed and discussed by different
persons(4,5). We do not claim that our proposal is a perpetuum
mobile.

We use a cylindrical tube of Mu metal as housing for the motor.
In the housing tube we have a tube of lower diameter made from
conducting material having the same axis as the housing tube. A
current flows in the inner tube along the length equally
distributed across the thicknell of the wall.The common axis of both these  
cylinders consist of a wire
carrying a current flowing in the opposite direction relative to
the current tube. If we look at the configuration of the field we
have a circular non vanishing rot B field in one direction near
the wall and a circular B field in the opposite direction near
the central wire. Now we use the wire as an axis of a rotor which
carries at least two symmetrically balanced permanent magnets
rods whose north poles point radially and the south poles
axially. The north poles are standing under the influence of the
B field near the wall, the south pole feels the opposite field
near by the wire. So a permanent torque is exerted on the rotor
which begins to spin around the central wire as the axis. We see
that our motor works only with permanent fields and needs no
brushes.

Therefore, the question arises: Is it not possible to use
permanent magnets + Mu metal shields to replace the current wires
by permanent magnets generating circular non vanishing rot B
fields of opposite orientation to get the rotor spinning, comp.
fig.5a).

Similar constructions are already patented
and can be found in the literature (6), comp. fig. 5b).
Furthermore, we emphasize that until today there exist no
generally accepted magnetic force law between differential
current loops. Only for closed current loop the situation is
clear, because all the different differential form coincide in
one. Different forms have been proposed by Biot Savart (7),
Ampere (7) (includes actio and reactio and conservation of
angular momentum), Whittaker (8) (includes only action=reaction),
Aspden (7) (includes only conservation of angular momentum) , and
Marinov (9). Marinov claims that he would have proved
experimentally his form as the correct one. Therefore, there seems to be an  
interesting field where important
questions can be solved.

Bibliography:

1) Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M.
   Electrodynamics of Continous Media
   Pergamon, Oxford, 1984

2) Wirtz D., Fuller G.G.  Phys.Rev.Lett.71, 2236, (1993)
   Debye P., Kleboth K. J.Chem.Phys.42, 3155, (1965)

3) Jackson,J.D.
   Classical Electrodynamics 2nd edition
   John Wiley, New York, 1975

4) Decker, J. BBS Keelynet PO-Box Mesquite Texas USA 75187
   Modem ..214 324 3501 Filename: TOMIBILD.ASC

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI device, free energy device ?
   24.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

5) anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk   TMI device, free energy device?
   26.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI + MRA updates, free energy
   25.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TOMI enhanced ! Free emergy device !
   31.3.95 in CL.ENERGY.ALTERNATIVEN

   prebys@puhep1.princeton.edu   TMI device, free energy device ?
   25.2.95 in SCI.ENERGY

6) Johnson, H.R. Permanent magnet motor  U.S.Patent No. 4.151.431
   Apr.24,1979

7) Aspden, Harold Physics without Einstein  Southampton 1969
   Aspden, Harold Modern Aether Physics     Southampton 1975

8) Whittaker, Edmund Sir
   A history of the theories of Aether and Electricity   Vol I    The  
classical theories
   Humanities Press  New York  1975

9) International Glasnost Journal of Fundamental Physics   Vol.3, No.11,     
Marinov, Stefan; p.18
_________________________________________________________________
Figures:

      ||                      ||                   ||
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
   |======|                |      |             |======|
   |      |                |      |             |      |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
     |  |---|                |--|-|               |--|-|
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
   |      |                |      |             |//////|
   |======|                |//////|             |======|
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
      ||                      ||                   ||

      1                        2                    3


fig. 1a): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion, condensation of liquid 2
separating volumes by closing the tap 2-3 recompression 3 opening
the tap, work has to be added to proceed the cycle



   P   ^     3 ._
   r   |       | |_
   e   |       |   |_
   s   |       |     |_ 3
   s   |     1 ._     |_
   u   |         |_     |<
   r   |           |__    |_
   e   |              |_>_  |__
       |                  |___.|
       |                        2
       |
       |
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                          Volume


fig. 1b): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
Pressure-volume diagram: 1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion,
condensation of liquid 2 separating volumes by closing the tap
2-3 recompression 3 opening the tap, work has to be added to
proceed the cycle



       ^
   P   |
   o   |
   l   |
   a   |
   r   |                          2
   i   |                   -------.
   s   |                __|   ____|
   a   |        1   _>_|  _<_|
   t   |        .__|   __|
   i   |        |   __|
   o   |        .__|
   n   |        3
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                   electric field




fig.2: isothermal cycle with electrically induced irreversibility
1 starting at the phase separation line with low field
1-2 applying a field 2 closing the tap 2-3 dicharging of the high
field 3 opening of the tap and returning to starting point 1A negative  
hysteresis is predicted according the Gibbs formalism.



                    _ _ _ _ _
       Top view  S |_|_|_|_|_| N   <--------moveable ROLLER magnet

 direction     S  |<--track-->|  N
 of ROLLER  ____________|____________
     |      |  ___|     |      |___  |
     |      | |___|  (start)   |___| |
     |      | |___|            |___| |        RUNNERS
     |      | |___|  incline   |___| <--------roll of magnets,positioned at
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the same angle as the slope of
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the incline
    \|/     | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |  N  |            | S   |
            |     |   decline  |     |<-------no magnets here, but not as much
            |  S  |            | N   |        space between the rolls as shown
            |  ___|____________|___  |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|  incline   |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |     |            |     |
            |  N  |   decline  | S   |
            |     |            |     |
            |     |____________|     |
            |        (finish)        |<-------ROLLER winds up here
            |________________________|




fig.3a) the TMI device, top view
the two magnets along the incline are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.



Side view ! (enhanced version !)
===========


     ROLLER starts here
         \|/
          |     ----------------> direction of moveable magnetic ROLLER
          |     /\              /\
          |   /    \          /    \
          | /        \      /        \
          /            \  /            \
        /-------------- /  -------------- <--------Magnetic ROLLER ends up
      /               /                            here



fig.3b) the TMI device, side view comp. textthe two magnets along the incline  
are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.

                    ___________________________
                  /                             \
                /                                 \
 Mu metal     /                                     \
 housing    /                                         \
          /                                             \
        /                                                 \
      /                   _______________                   \
    /                   /    ------->     \                   \
   |       current    /      B-fields       \                  |
   |          tube  /           |             \                |
   |              /             |               \              |
   |             |    /---------|----------\     |             |
   |             |  / _______  <--  ________ \   |             |
   |             |  ||S     N| /-\ |N      S||   |             |
   |             |  ||_______| \-/ |________||   |             |
   |             |  \       axis wire        /   |             |
   |             |    \--------------------/     |             |
   |              \           rotor              /             |
   |               \    \                      /               |
   |                \     \---->             /                 |
    \                 \ ___________________/                  /
      \                                                     /
        \                                                 /
          \                                             /
            \                                         /
              \                                     /
                \                                 /
                  \_____________________________/


fig.4 magnetic motor with no brushes; top view
the magnet charges on the rotor are spinning around the axis wire
in the stationary double circular and opposite rot B fields of
the wire and the current tube.

fig.5a) our magnetic motor proposal using only permanent magnetsthe central  
wire is replaced by an inner ring consisting of
permanent magnets and Mu metal shields generating an non
vanishing B-field; the current tube is replaced by an outer ring
of permanent magnets and Mu metal shields. the rotor is the same
as in fig. 4. The field configuration seen by the rotor is in
effect the same as in fig.4., only both the opposite non
vanishing rot B fields of the stator are generated by permanent
magnets. Unwanted parts of the field are shielded by Mu metal. It
is clear that the configuration can be multiplied to enforce the
power by taking more circles. Magnets similar as used by Johnson
are recommended for the stator fields, comp fig.5b). Using
electromagnets instead of permanent magnets would enhance power.

fig.5b) the Johnson motor, US Patent Nr. 4,151,431
permanent magnets as stator, rotor with non vanishing
rot B -field , see original patent


_________________________________________________________________
disclaimer regarding employer
Anti-Copyright  -  can be copied by everybody for nothing


Berlin, Germany, on the 4th of April 1995.
Best regards, Stefan Hartmann.

--
Hartmann Multimedia Service
Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann
Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66   FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79
email: harti@contrib.de     harti@b-2.de.contrib.net
Web access: http://www.b-2.de.contrib.net/harti/harti.html## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr  7 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
