1995.04.10 / Adam Almog /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: nissim@bu.edu (Adam Almog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 21:50:21 GMT
Organization: Boston University



(Don't drink d20 - it is poisonous!)
 
Deil C. Bland (dbland@crl.com) wrote:
: In article <wolk-0904952152010001@koh-mac75.usc.edu>,
: Wendy Wolk <wolk@scf.usc.edu> wrote:
: >I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:

: >1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
: >water) on the human body. In what doses
: >2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.

: Deuterium Oxide (heavy water) has been highly touted as a hangover remedy
: in a branch of the US military which shall go nameless here. Half a cup
: of "jolt water" was said to be the proper dose.

This is madness.  Pure D20 causes cell division abnormalities/stops cell
division.  Dilute D2O, 30% deuterium has basically no effect on rats.
Since pure D2O is poison, and dilute is harmless, I would be worried that 
the absorption process across drenched cell membranes could be a problem.

You body might be fine, but you could deliver a huge insult to your GI tract.

Mars has lots of D2O - but only in the Martian Nuclear Navy.  
Also, sometimes sandworms pee the stuff after they chomp down a vessel.

-Treon via Adam

P.S. just check medline!
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennissim cudfnAdam cudlnAlmog cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 21:00:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc.
ug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <3lhi1b$ekb@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>> In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>> Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>> >In article <3lc6tj$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:
>
>> >> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>> >> >    What type will it be?
>
>> >> 	high beta, 40-80%
>
>> Now the question is whether 40-80% is practical. I think it is. FRC's
>> routinely operate in the high end of this range naturally. People are
>> doing (th) studies on very low aspect ratio tokamaks that get beta-toroidal
>> several hundred percent and still maintain stability to large classes
>> of mhd modes. 

So wait a minute, are we speaking "practical" here.  If so, it seems to
me that Beta should be measured with respect to the highest field
pressure (or just pressure) that must be generated by the engineer to
confine and stabilize the plasma.  In a tokamak the toroidal field 
is the largest pressure generator, and so BETA should be measured with
respect to the toroidal field.  Sure, you can get inflated numbers by
measuring poloidal BETA, but the poloidal field and it's generating
plasma current are relatively insignificant.  This way a wider class
of machines can compare BETA and have it mean something.  

>It's interesting how all these questions hang together. If John Cobb
>is right that we can't live with copious 14 MeV neutrons, then we will
>have to go to D-He3, which ignites at higher temperatures, which will
>force us to go to high beta to avoid synchrotron radiation, which may
>only be possible with a very low aspect ratio. If you burn D-T, there
>is a lower limit on the aspect ratio due to the shielding needed, so
>it may be possible to go to lower aspect ratios with D-He. Also, a
>high-beta, low aspect ratio machine may need to be steady state, since
>you don't have any room for a transformer in the core, but the high
>beta may increase the diamagnetic currents and the low aspect ratio
>may increase the bootstrap current so that steady state becomes
>possible. It's important to think of each suggestion as a package
>which is a local optimum, either or neither of which may be a global
>optimum. My arguments against the possibility of high beta and the
>need for steady state do not apply with the same force or in the same
>way to John Cobb's D-He3 concept as to the standard D-T concept.

These are arguments to go to a class physical embodiements of the
torodally confined geometry which are far more compressible and more
stable.  The fast burning of the fuel within the A/C cycle time and
use of direct conversion are even better.   

>The second thing I'd like to know about is low aspect ratio
>tokamaks. Almost all tokamaks have an aspect ratio (major radius
>divided by minor radius) around 3. (Smaller is hard to build because
>there's no room in the hole, and bigger costs you money on
>circumference that you would rather spend on cross section.) 

One can't get a higher aspect ratio than a PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  

>Two more small points. First, let's just agree that FRC's are better
>than tokamaks. :)  (Actually, they are predicted to be MHD
>unstable. The fact that they are experimentally stable could be
>related to the small size of current experiments.) 

You will also note that there is line-tying and wall (image) trapping.  
After all an FRC is a tokamak but without the toroidal field coils,and
it is usually further disguised from tokamak by having its axis in 
the horizontal.   

>                                     .. . . Second, the size of
>a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. If we increase beta
>without improving transport, a reactor (or an ignition experiment)
>won't get cheaper, just more powerful. Raise beta from 10% to 60% and
>your 3 GW ITER becomes a 100 GW ITER. I know, I know, use a shitty
>fuel and the value drops again, although even with 3 GW D-He3 fusion
>power, the divertor problem becomes 5 times harder since those
>friendly neutrons are no longer carrying away 80% of your power.

Hey!  Just which fuel are you calling "shitty".    That's a spin! 		

Yep as far as transport is concerned, a bit of hyperconductivity could 
help, if only there was a way to heat the tokamak plasma sufficiently 
without the use of thermal currents.  

>-- 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
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: 11 Apr 1995 01:46:32 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D6u6s3.5r1@news.cern.ch> Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:

> Given the enormity of their claim and their observed effect
> which is appears to be about 10% and which is presented
> without an uncertainty, Tom Droege was right to be sceptical.
> 

Yes, the experiment Jed saw was not very exciting---an 8% excess
in such an industrial set up could come from a number of things.

That's why Jed R.'s experiments seemed much more interesting
(Hey---he's gone for a week, we can talk about him without
his usual polemical diatribes in response :-), since he conservatievly
estimated 60 % excesses, and more over it was associated with an
actual change in operating mode of the device---i.e. varying the 
flow parameters caused it to switch between the over unity/under
unity modes, via a large drop in frictional torque against the motor.

I could easily believe what Tom D. saw was just a result of 
optimizing some experimental artifact. But what Jed R reported
seems like it reflected a real physical phenomena (even though 
I doubt its interpretation as over unity energy production is true).




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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / C Dhanwada /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: dhanwada@iastate.edu (C Dhanwada)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 11 Apr 1995 02:12:30 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University


In article <3mc012$2tnu@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, deveyn@holly.ACNS.Colo
tate.EDU (Daniel Norton) writes:
: On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:
: > I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
: > 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
: > water) on the human body. In what doses
: > 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
: I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
: absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
: heavy water are rather small.

[X> I know it's been a *long* time since I looked at anything related 
[X> to astronomy, but doesn't Mars have polar ice???

As I recall the Mars' polar cap ice is condensed carbon-di-oxide,
not water. Anyone know more about this?

-CD.
-- 
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
main(){
  C.Dhanwada             *  dhanwada@iastate.edu
  Nuclear.Engineering    *  Iowa.State.University
  Adaptive.Computing.Lab *  Phone(515-294-5845)
  World.Wide.Web.Page    *  http://www.public.iastate.edu/~dhanwada/
}
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendhanwada cudfnC cudlnDhanwada cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 /  ZEBASTIAN /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: zebastian@aol.com (ZEBASTIAN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 10 Apr 1995 22:22:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Are you not thinking of tritiated water?  d2O is of course chemicaly
equivalent to h2O and unless I am in error d is not radioactive.

John E. Sebastian

P.S. you would however make a better moderator.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenzebastian cudlnZEBASTIAN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 11 Apr 1995 08:32:21 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <Pine.DYN.3.90.950410095343.13705A-100000@ecf.puc.edu>
Jeremy Johnson <jjohnson@puc.edu> writes:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:
>
>> I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>> 
>> 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>> water) on the human body. In what doses
>> 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>> 
>
>I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 

Deuterium, as in heavy water, is toxic (the difference in the ionization
potential of the deuterium atom, compared to plain hydrogen, upsets body
chemistry. I believe heavy water is lethal in large doses, but i can't remember
the lethal dose (under a liter of heavy water i think).

>absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
>heavy water are rather small.
>

There maybe permafrost on Mars (ice mixed with rubble) underneath the surface
layers of soil in some areas (maybe underneath what appear to be ancient river-
beds), and the polar caps are made of carbon dioxide ice over much smaller caps
of water ice, although it is true that the martian atmosphere is very much drier
than Earth's. If the isotopic ration for hydrogen is the same on Mars (can't see
why not), then we should find heavy water in martian water (ca 200ppm i think).

>> 
>> Thank you for your help
>>    -wolk@scf.usc.edu
>> 
>> 
>
>
>jeremy

Frank Ieromnimon,
ierof@essex.ac.uk.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 14:44:52 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <JAC.95Apr7233123@gandalf.llnl.gov>,
James Crotinger <jac@gandalf.llnl.gov> wrote:
>In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>
>>   It's interesting how all these questions hang together. If John Cobb
>>   is right that we can't live with copious 14 MeV neutrons, then we will
>>   have to go to D-He3, which ignites at higher temperatures, which will
>>   force us to go to high beta ...
>
>  I can see that D-He3 will help the first wall issue. But the blanket
>thickness is determined by the need to shield the superconducting magnets
>from the neutrons. Does this thickness go down linearly with the neutron
>level, or logarithmically? I suspect it is more like the latter - you just
>can't afford to tolerate neutrons getting to the magnets. Thus the blanket
>thickness in a D-He3 reactor may have to be just as thick as in DT.  And
>if this is true, then the advantage of D-He3 is not nearly so clear.

What I meant in my statement above was that with D-3He the integrated
neutron flux over a long period (years) is smaller. So if you use the
same blanket design, the components behind the blanket will have longer 
lifetimes. note: no blanket is ever perfect, some neutrons will always
get through. This is particularly true for the structural components and the
first wall. They are always going to feel neutrons because the first wall
is in front of the blanket and you can't build a blanket without structural
support. Now I have seen people talk about a modular first wall that can be
easily replaced every year or so (A tough problem, but they say that it is
doable). However, the strucutral components are much less interchangeable.
My understanding is that the thermal and mechanical stresses put pretty
severe limits on materials that can be used structurally. these limits are
made worse when we try to restrict ourselves to low activation materials.
One effect of neutron bombardment is to dislocate the crystal lattice, so 
as time goes by, neutrons will facillitate cracking and brittleness. So the
win is that D-3He can give you 10 times less neutrons. If the structural
support is the design limitation, the D-3He will buy you a factor of 10 leeway
in the lifetime of the structure. If it is not, then you can make your blanket
design less beefy and gain some critical space in the area just outside of
the vacuum vessel. However, the impression I have been given is that one will
need to use the leeway to lengthen lifetime components rather than decrease
blanket size if the plant lifetime is going to get to 20 years.

>
>>   >>   Two more small points. First, let's just agree that FRC's are better
>>   than tokamaks. :)  (Actually, they are predicted to be MHD
>>   unstable. ..
>>   Second, the size of
>>   a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. 
>
>  It is also limited by wall loading, assuming DT. So even if your
>transport gets real good and you maneuver past the beta limits, you're
>still constrained to a minimum size by the fact that the first wall
>can only take something like 5 MW/m^2. This, combined with the need to
>shield the toroidal field magnets from the neutrons, makes it pretty
>easy to calculate the minimum volume of the blanket (and thus a
>minimum cost), and the answer is uncomfortably large!

What I think you may be missing, Jim, is that FRC's do not have a
coil in the central core, so the most difficult problem of inboard 
sheilding is obviated. Of course, some outboard shielding is still
needed. The 5 MW/m^2 limit needs to be broken up into light
and plasma flow. Plasma flow only hits the divertor plates, while
light goes everywhere. I think FRC's are a win on both counts though.
In terms of light, the syn. losses are less because of the high beta.
In terms of plasma flow, it is easier to handle because FRC's "jet"
out their ends. This is what is meant by a natural divertor.

>
>>   power, the divertor problem becomes 5 times harder since those
>>   friendly neutrons are no longer carrying away 80% of your power.
>
>  Right. Proponents of advanced fuels spout "direct conversion". But I
>remember that Lidsky bagged on DC just as hard as he bagged on MFE
>back when I was at MIT (I TA's his intro class and took his reactor
>design class the year he wrote his Tech. Review article, which was the
>last year he taught fusion courses). DC would require very big and
>complex converters, all under very tight vacuum. This does not look
>cheap.

I didn't know Lidsky  stressed that part as well. However, I agree with
the point. DEC's, while they are a nice concept, they tend to grow
large, and they end up with a large vacuum volume that has to be
pumped like all get-out. This is the same thing you see ITER folks
talking about now. There is just a lot of pumping that has to go on.
So DEC's seem like an alternative, but they are not a gimme. take a look
at the ARTEMIS design [Fusion Tech. vol. 21 p. 2307 July 1992] and see
how big the DEC's are.

-john .w cobb


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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 15:29:31 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1995Apr4.233000.24707@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:
>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
>...  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.
>...

I'm glad you responded. My main purpose was to spark a discussion
along these grounds. I think it is important to think in terms of
what is the VALUE of the fusion program if it is to avoid being
viewed as an entitlement/pork program. Now on to the substance of what
is the correct number.

I'm not up on the exact numbers, but $1 Trillion seems a good ball park.
and $100 Billion seems like as good as any estimate of fusion's market
share. However, this is the total revenue stream to fusion energy, not
the royalty payment that goes to the holder of "THE FUSION PATENT".
Let me add my estimate that the royalty is 10% of the gross-sales and
you see that the "value" of successful fusion technology is only $10
Billion. -- more on this below.


>
>> 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.

Right. So let's compare it with say the recording industry or writing, where
there is a single creative component, the author/performer. What kind of
royalties do they get? My memory seems to say in the 5-15% range. Now
consider a product that uses several pieces of technology. How much does
the patent holder get in that case? much less than 5-15%. When I look at
companies annual reports, companies that invest in technology to provide
future products tend to spend around 10% of sales on R&D. So maybe this is
another way to measure the "intellectual property" component of a product's
ultimate price.

My point is that I think you left out a factor of 0.1 by not considering
that only a portion of the total sales is assignable to development
expenses. Also note that current reactor studies do not amortize this
muli-decade research expenditure when they calculate the COE for future
power plants. In that sense, you are double counting. You are using utility
revenues to pay for the cost of building the plants and you are also using
them to recover the costs of R&D.

>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.

Right. So this point is an argument of why government intervention into the
private R&D sector is justified. However, it does nothing to change the
bottomline calculus about what is the break-even point that makes fusion
an economic value or waste.


Now something that I left out (I know, sand-bagging again :> ) was that
there are benefits of fusion research besides the development of fusion
energy. My job today is studying how to design semi-conductor fabrication
tools using plasma processes. Plasma science has had a dramatic positive
imapct in this area, ALREADY (not 60 years from now). I don't know how
to justify that value of the results from these "spinoffs" or "technology
transfer". However, I think if a final tally were done, that these results
might be every bit as important and economically useful as the
continous search for the holy-grail of a fusion power-plant. If we limit
ourselves to justifying research into plasma science based solely on fusion,
I am afraid that we cannot reach a reasonable conclusion that it is a justified
expense. Moreover, such a narrow focus of plasma science leads many fusioneers
to neglect wonderful opportunities that are created along the way.

Just to name a few, consider the important and lasting imapct that Project
Sherwood and its descendents have had in:

High Performance Computing
International computer networking
Surface science
advanced manufacturing
complex systems/chaos
turbulence
information theory
numerical solution of differential equations
RF theory and experiment
hyper-velocity research (pellet0guns and rail-guns)
Free electron lasers
X-ray lasers
High Energy Accelerators
Solar Astrophysics
Magnetospheric physics
stellar structure
vaccum technology
computer simulation
...

Given the inability to justify MFE budgets based on the goal of fusion
as an energy program, does this mean we should consider altering the
mission statement of the Office of Fusion Energy? Shouldn't we explicitly
acknowledge the advancement of the fundamental discipline of plasma science
as the primary goals? Shouldn't we question the policy of other
funding sources (such as NSF) explicitly or implicitly neglecting plasma
science by claiming that this area is "OFE's purview".

My point is this. OFE has a stated policy to develop fusion energy and
funds plasma research primarily to that end. Nobody else funds
plasma physics because they defer to OFE. Through the cracks fall many
important, interesting, fundamental plasma problems. But in historical and
probably future impact, It is exactly these types of plasma problems that 
have had and will have the most positive impact on society.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 11 Apr 1995 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

OK, Dieter, how about this.  D2O2 is made at the anode.  Normally the
cathode would decompose it as it is made.  But what if it too builds
up a film that covers the surface.  Say a nice layer of D+.  Now suppose
this condidion lasts for a while until some quantity of D2O2 builds up.
Now suppose that something happens at the cathode - like the "gas" layer
is unstable and blows off a small area.  This exposes an active area,
and the D2O2 starts decomposing, liberating heat which causes a further
active area to be exposed.  Now we have an unstable condition which 
proceeds untill all the D2O2 is used up.  

Yes, this is grasping at straws.  But I need something to explain the 
200 joule heat pulses that I observed.  At times they were even periodic.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 18:56 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> Coincidentally with the first working day of ICCF5, I received my copy
-> of the first issue of Mallove's new cold fusion magazine, Infinite Energy,
-> yesterday April 10th.
 
Interesting, I received a copy of Wayne Green's "Cold Fusion" the same day.
 
-> A detailed report by Bruce Klein of Bechtel describes his in-house
-> verification attempts of CEI's Patterson Power Cell patent claims.
-> The Power Cell uses millimeter sized balls with a polymer core coated
-> with micron thick layers of Ni, then Pd, or the newest Ni/Pd/Ni, acting
-> as a cathode material in either a 1.0 molar Li2SO4 lightwater or
-> heavywater electrolyte.  Klein concludes that his observations verify
-> the claims, but Klein does point out that over 3/4ths of the generated
-> heat is not recovered in the coolant output flow, so a detailed
-> characterization of the missing heat flow mechanisms are warranted.
 
The Patterson cell was covered in Cold Fusion as well.  I was not impressed,
they were running an open system, and subtracting the disassociation energy
from the input, and not accounting for the output gases.  I figured that 100%
of the excess could have been accounted for by recombination.
 
-> Just in time, a second article by Dr. Dennis Cravens reports that he
-> took a Patterson device back to his own lab and improved the thermal
-> insulation around the device so that he now accounts for up to 93% of
-> the heat.  He also fully characterized the thermal characteristics
-> with calibration runs over a wide range of conditions.  Dr. Cravens
-> reports greater than 1:1 excess power even neglecting to correct for
-> dissociation loss -- the most conservative estimate.  He will report
-> the actual ratios at ICCF5 (as a "pleasant surprise") and is hoping to
-> bring the device as a demo unit.
 
Cold Fusion indicated that they would reporting on Cravens testing in a later
issue.
 
There was an interesting article titled "Quantum Oscillations of the Dynamic
Coulomb Barrier within a Deuterium-Loaded Palladium Lattice."  The point of the
article seemed to be that cold fusion could be explained by theory, but I am
still wrestling with the math in this article.
 
Also there was an article titled "Extraordinary Traces Produced During Pulsed
Discharges in Water".  The crux of this article was that what appears to
miniature ball lightening is produced by 100 V discharges under water between a
PD and a PT electrode.  There are a number of figures which show circles, rings
and wide traces, where these small ball lightning crossed or moved down the
emulsion of the nuclear film.
 
However this article had a very bizzare paragraph or two.  I will quote it:
"The sixth were strange traces like microbacteria, shown in Figure 9 (which was
missing).  Four traces were observed so far and all were found on the surface
of the nuclear emulsions.  They all had common shapes with similar dimensions
of about 6 micrometer long, and seemed to have organlike objects in the body.
Especially in figure 9c (also missing), something like a mouth and feeler
appeared.  However they were not complete microbacteria such as exist in the
natural environment.  They might be prototypes of microbacteria."  What the
heck can you make of that?  It appears that they are implying that almost
complete bacteria are formed by the discharges.  I know that was the April
issue, but that is just too bizzare for me to consider.
 
There was also a letter to the editor, which had to have been put in there
because this was the April issue.  Here is part of that letter:
"I have been interested in hydrogen since my neighbor tried to burn me up with
heavy water.  My wife's brother had hired the neighbor to break up our marriage
even if it killed us.  ... the arsonist burned down the LDS Stake (his
spelling) House using hydrogen.  As you may know, heavy water is a marvelous
arson tool, the building is burned before the fire alarm can go off."
 
"Several years ago, I did the so-called "cold fusion" experiment.  I believe it
was in '84 that the UFO came & indicated they would no longer help me with my
experiment.  They explained that I had not conjugated with a certain high
school girl. ....  It (cold fusion) yields tritium which is much more powerful
than hydrogen.  Tritium heavy water is not radioactive and can be used for fuel
if it is vaporized and then introduced in the motor.  The water vapor is enough
to slow the explosion so that it will not knock."
 
Two pages were a reprint of postings made here by you (John Logan) on
Halo-nuclei and the Omegon.  It seems that they are really hurting for
material to print.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 23:32:36 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3meak0$m7t@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>I have no intention of crawling into the peroxide camp, but at least at the
>cathode, one could imagine that the outgassing D2 catalytically recombines
>with the excess oxygen in the D2O2 to render more D2O.  Mr. White would
>likely posit that at the anode the "gunk" on the anode prevents decomposition,
>so that would explain away the lack of significant bubbling upon current
>removal.

I don't know John. H2O2 is pretty active and there are very few things that 
don't catalize it if memory serves. One of the few common metals was
chemically pure aluminum? What else is on the electrode? Lithium?

In any case how do you completely cover the elctrode with something that
doesn't catalyze a H2O2 reaction? Where is it coming from?

I think that Dieter needs to be listened to -- it ain't H2O2. Seems to me
the original argument wasn't that it _was_ H2O2, but that H2O2 _could_
contain the required amount of energy. That being the case there might be
some other storage medium.

OK, what? Certainly a much greater care in the calorimetry would tell the
story and this is where I tend to watch Tom Droege -- his double calorimetry
revealed that there were several mechanisms that provided temporary and
significant energy storage that would confound single calorimetrists.

If positives, therefore, don't use the same double checking I would discount
any results.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 12 Apr 1995 00:08:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3mcp5r$h3j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zebastian@aol.com (ZEBASTIAN)  
writes:
> Are you not thinking of tritiated water?  d2O is of course chemicaly
> equivalent to h2O and unless I am in error d is not radioactive.
> 
> John E. Sebastian
> 
> P.S. you would however make a better moderator.

You'd have to pay me an awful lot to get me to work as
a moderator in a nuclear power core

:-)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 12 Apr 1995 00:12:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3meipk$58t@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:

> I often wonder just what Jed's motives are.  They do not seem to be the
> advancement of science - else he would learn to conduct his arguments in
> a different style.  So, Jed, why are you here?
> 
> Tom Droege
> 


Well, since Jed is gone to ICCF 95, we can talk about him 
to our hearts content without worrying about his annoying input :-)
I would guess that Jed likes to view himself as a man with a mission,
to bring the CF truth to an ignorant populace. I think he also likes
his effective role as local CF spokesperson, since it gives him 
a certain power and importance. 

He probably also plans to---somehow, its not clear---become the next
Bill Gates based on the coming CF mega-payoff.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Gary Steckly /  Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 22:45:35 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Michael Huffman (knuke@big.aa.net) wrote:
: It's HUFFMAN! Not HUFFING!  ARRG!! I haven't heard that one since grade 
: school!!

I thought something sounded strange when I read John's first post, but 
he did correct it promptly ;-)

A short while back Scott Little mentioned that you are working on a 
new unit that might be available for him to test.  As a contributor 
to the Droege expedition, I have been trying to muster support to use the 
remaining funds ($700) to purchase or lease your device for testing at Mr. 
Little's lab. Would that amount cover the purchase/lease/shipping of this 
device in the event that any of the other contributors are interested?

regards

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re:       Re:  Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:       Re:  Fusion timetable
Date: 12 Apr 1995 02:02:04 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <199504101239.WAA10213@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>  
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
> 
> How about the following suggestion:
> 
> Take only $50.- million / annum off the Tokamak program, for a period 
> of 7 years. Distribute these funds over half a dozen ACs. Those 
> people who were working on the Tokamak and being paid with these 
> funds could transfer to work on the ACs as well. Result:
> 1) Imperceptible delay in the overall timetable of the Tok.
> 2) Development work gets done on ACs.
> 3) Everyone remains employed.
> 4) Transferred people gain broader experience.

Well, they took 15 million of last week---can you say budget recision---and
you didn't even get a single AC funded by that :-)

Still, it doesn't really work like you suggest---thats akin to saying:
ok, Robin, why don't you have 6 kids, and to feed them you get by
on 1000 calories a day for the next 5 years.

Two obvious problems: (1) you will shrivel away on 1000 cal/day, and
(2) as your kids grow, they will want increased food---where does
that come from.

Those realities are on top of the turf wars that always result from shifting
funding around within one community.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 12 Apr 1995 02:55:31 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Two pages were a reprint of postings made here by you (John Logan) on
: Halo-nuclei and the Omegon.  It seems that they are really hurting for
: material to print.

I haven't gotten that issue yet (must be #9) but I suspect the inclusion
of that was to appease Prof. Chris Illert who apparently would like to 
see more reaction to his halo-nuclei/omegon theories.  Unfortunately
I'm not in a position to be able to comment on such theories one way
or the other -- all well beyond my understanding and knowledge.

--
 - 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:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 /  visor@globalco /  Warm Fusion
     
Originally-From: visor@globalcom.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Warm Fusion
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 01:58:21 PDT
Organization: GlobalCom


In an experiment using sonic stimulation of plain water I had some interesting 
results. Anyone working along the same lines ?

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvisor cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Max E /  A new Unitary Theory
     
Originally-From: "Max E. Rizzi" <qua1390@cdc712_1.cdc.polimi.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A new Unitary Theory
Date: 11 Apr 1995 08:03:24 GMT
Organization: Centro di Calcolo del Politecnico di Milano

                         Milan (Italy)

For the first time in Internet, a new unitary physical theory called: 
The Waving Theory of the Field. 
 
In this new unitary theory, changing the actual starting hipothesis on 
the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous 
space-time, that may becomes, the agent and, at same time, the 
background of physical phenomena. 
In this modular space-time, organized like a discrete lattice, can 
occour states of geometric perturbations of this discrete lattice that 
move along the relativistic geodetics, identified by integral Lorentz 
transformations.
These perturbations are spherical waves' surfaces that move its own 
discrete spherical surface's parts, in the discrete lattice, like 
bidimensional planes. 
We make the hipothesis that the subatomic particles are the elementary 
sources of these spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all fields 
ascribing to the particles. 
On this basis, we make a new physics that, starting from existence of a 
discrete space-time, obeys to laws of a discrete space-time geometry, 
that connect the microphysics to macrophysics. 
Through it we comprehend and connect Quantum Mechanics at General 
Relativity, and Mechanics at Cosmology in one global design. 
On the same basis, we can understand: gravitational interactions,  
electromagnetic interactions and a new model for nuclear interactions.  
We discover a waving model of elementary particles, adapts to describe 
all microphysics' phenomena, that, obeing one's simmetry' principle, 
leave out the nigthmare of the singularity, allowing an understanding, 
mere causal, able to justify all the passages, apparently indeterministic, 
inherited from Quantum Mechanics.
This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the 
space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes a new 
coherent theoretical justification for experimental phenomena of the 
Cold Fusion, describing at the same time the composition of a waving 
structurate model of the particles' family and all its decays.  

The new waving model of interactions produces a waving explication for the 
bodies' inertia, conducing the Clein-Gordon formula to a complete physical 
comprehension, and freeing Relativity from the assumption of identity 
between inertial forces and gravitational forces, deriving a causal 
explication of a new Waving Quantum Gravity.
It follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity 
and an antigravitational Fifth Waving Interaction, derived from the 
relativistic limitation of the ligth velocity, that regulates the 
composition and behaviour of macrobodies in the Universe. 
We can draw a new way for the rationalization of the controversal 
astronomical observations that interest the actions of the cosmological 
masses.
 
The Compton effect carries a waving explication, derived from an extending 
of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and 
permits, to come to a description of all interactions of micromechanics. 
A natural extension of the same Compton effect drives to a waving 
electron's model, and to all subatomic particles, placing a valid causal 
basis for the waving explications of the Lorentz force, and producing a 
model of electromagnetic interactions, that brings to a consequent 
perception of meaning of the electric charge's nature.  
We rediscover a coherent atom's model in which a causality chain, 
purely waving, permits to follow the development, step by step, of the 
waving actions on the photoelectric fenomena, revealing the really waving 
nature of the fine structure constant, connected to a light emission's 
mechanism, merely causal.

The Waving Theory of the Field has been already published in Italy, 
from the author  Walter  E. R.  Cassani, in october 1984 on a book 
entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), distributed from 
author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and 
Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). 
No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists.

A next evolution was published in the same way in 1989 with title:
La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo (The Waving Teory of the Field).
(This is actually translated in english, and showed in Internet) 
No reaction from the official universitary circuit.

A third book entitled: Albert Aveva Ragione - Dio non gioca a dadi,
( Albert Was Rigth - God doesn't play dice ) is published in Milan
in january 1994, and personally distributed from the author in
300 book-shops.
The first edition (5000 copies) selled.

Many hentusiastic letters from students, chemists, engineers, ecc.
A first conference in the Aula Magna of  the Physical Dep. of
Bologna University. 
250 students, 1 Relativity Prof, 1 Dep. Cheef.
3 hours of conference, full hentusiasm from the rest 200 students.

No reactions from the physicists.
No reaction from the scientific journalists, in many ways requested. 
  
Is here and now possible to begin in Internet a new international
scientific revolution, that involves physics foundations and assists 
the appearing of a new paradigma ?

Perhaps Internet is born for this.  
 
>From you, it must come the stimulation to falsify it in the Popper's
spirit or, eventually, promove it.

* 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
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenqua1390 cudfnMax cudlnE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / HOLCOMB D /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 11 Apr 95 01:55:11 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder

Jeremy Johnson <jjohnson@puc.edu> writes:

>On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:

>> I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>> 
>> 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>> water) on the human body. In what doses
>> 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>> 

>I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
>absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
>heavy water are rather small.

This is a nice bit of comlementarity!  I know nothing at all about the second
question, but I can give a pretty good answer to the first.  Chemically, heavy
water is just water.  It is still H2O, but the hydrogen atoms have an extra
neutron, which makes the nuclei deuterons.  Deuterium is not an independent
element.  Since deuterons are stable, i.e. not radioactive, there are no
radiation effects either.  Heavy water is just, well, heavier.  A heavy water
molecule will weigh about 16/14 = 1.143 times as much as a normal water atom.
Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill effects of
drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?"

question, but can give a pretty fair answer to the first.  There 
>> 
>> Thank you for your help
>>    -wolk@scf.usc.edu
>> 
>> 


>jeremy
-- 

"Omit needless words and such." 
William Strunk, from the rough draft of _The Elements of Style_.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenholcomb cudfnHOLCOMB cudlnD cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update, 11-Apr-95
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update, 11-Apr-95
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 13:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello all,

here is the last of the Mohicans, i.e. ICCF4 papers in Fusion Technol. Trans.
I seem to have got them in some disorder, and found the Kozima in the stack,
as well as the other Swartz. This is it, there are no more.

Now, as I entered all these "papers", I found myself regretting more and more
my decision to accept them as real papers. My reason for this was, at the time,
that they all appeared in a proper journal (Fusion Technology), and were
refereed. In retrospect, this is a matter of some argument. The journal is
in fact a special issue, sometimes even given a special name, Fusion. Technol.
Transactions; this indicates that the issue is a kind of conf. proc. The
refereeing was decidedly slack; a conscientious referee would have had thumbs
down on most of these travesties of papers. Off-hand, I can't think of a single
paper in that issue that was worth publishing at all. There were some that had
quality, I don't deny that. But those that did were either duplicates of papers
published elsewhere (in a proper journal like J. Electroanal. Chem., see e.g.
the Will et al below) or boil-downs of such papers (the Chechin et al, or was
that Rabinowitz et al?), or will presumably be published properly. There were
a lot of obvious talks, like the two that have, printed on paper, words to
the effect that the author was running out of time! I have never seen this
before in a scientific paper.

So here is what I am going to do. I will throw them all out again. I did
type them all in and there they are, so maybe it would be a pity to just
throw them away; so I'll put them into a special file in the archives, called
fusion.iccf4. Anyone who wants to, can ftp the file and read it, so they will
not be lost to posterity. The total papers count will once again drop to below
1000, for the moment. All this will take a bit of time, so you won't see the
results for a few weeks. I also have to modify my software a bit, to prevent
a repetition of what happened about a fortnight ago, where I had some files
out of alphabetic order in the update file, and the merging program put them
in in that order, so at least two of my biblio files are slightly out of
sorts. This will be fixed, and prevented in future.

To forestall snide remarks from you starry-eyed TB droogs: this bibliography
is mine, all mine, and I decide what goes in and what doesn't. Generally, I
think I make the right decisions, and I think I am making the right one this
time. I am not a journal editor, whom you can accuse of rejecting papers (in
fact I have been referee for a few CNF papers, in good journals, and have
passed them). If you don't like my choice, make up your own file - even by
putting together the big one and this special conf-proc one, if you like. I
don't mind. Just don't complain about censorship, or about Danes (or
Australians) restricting USAmerican's access to Internet or some such
rhetoric. Have a nice Easter, or Passach or whatever.

Journal Papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Kozima H;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 508.
"Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion of deuterons and protons in inhomogeneous
solids".
** Theory, trapped neutrons, res+
Kozima presents what amounts to speculation about neutrons trapped as standing
waves between metal atoms in the lattice. He goes on to suppose that such
trapped neutrons can fuse with, e.g., deuterons to produce tritons, or with
protons to produce deuterons. They might also collide with deuterons and cause
these to fuse with others; the same effect might cause tritons to fuse with
deuterons, producing helium and a neutron again, to start another cycle. There
are some calculations (no basis given), and the author believes that this
model accounts for both cold fusion observations, as well as the burst nature
of cold fusion sometimes claimed. He does suggest one experiment to test the
proposal: instead of a metal like Pd, use a layered material of the metal
alternating with its oxide, or a proton conducting ceramic, using elements of
as high a Z as possible.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Swartz M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 369.
"A method to improve algorithms used to detect steady state excess enthalpy".
** Polemic on excess heat found in nulls, res+
The point of this paper is to warn against the improper use of base line
correction to calorimetric data, as the author believes has been done, notably
by purported null experiments. If the results contain a step in excess heat
and the workers subtract a straight line reaching over the step, then a
"reverse Z" signature will be found. Detecting such reverse Z in purported
nulls will unmask unrecognised positives in such work. Swartz then finds such
a feature in work by Albagli et al, referred to as the PFC Phase-II work. Thus
linear regression baseline correction may be flawed but detected, concludes
the author. Look for reverse Z.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Taylor SF, Claytor TN, Tuggle DG, Jones SE;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 180.
"Search for neutrons from deuterided palladium subject to high electrical
currents".
** Experimental, neutrons, tritium, nonequilibrium, high current, res0.
This team put high electrical current through several variants of long thin
Pd conductors being loaded with, or loaded by, or unloading deuterium, while
monitoring for neutrons, all done in the Provo Canyon tunnel, where the
background is very low. Sophisticated multi-detector gear with discrimination
algorithms against noise was used. These cells had produced some tritium, so
it was of interest whether neutrons were also emitted. There was a long thin
Pd wire, a long track filled with compacted Pd powder, and one with silicon.
Although the neutron counts were all close to background (no more than about
1 sigma above), there did appear to be some faint correlation of neutrons
with tritium production, which was fairly reproducible. The authors cautiously
regard the results as inconclusive, however, and suspect systematic effects
as the possible false neutron detection. Another paper by Tuggle et al in the
same issue is pointed out, in which spurious sources of tritium are discussed
(and in fact rejected).
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Tsuchiya K, Ohashi K, Fukuchi M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 493.
"Mechanism of cold nuclear fusion II".
** Theory, boson clustering, res+
The authors extend the ideas of Bush et al; if deuterons are bosons, then they
might cluster together. Using Lipkin's theory, deuteron creation, annihilation
operators and model Hamiltonians, they then calculate the force between a
deuteron pair in a clump of various sizes within a small metal lattice volume.
It turns out that this force has an negative minimum (maximum in attraction)
at some number N around 70. At larger N, the force passes through zero and
then goes through a repulsive maximum. They conclude that the attractive clump
size of around 70 is most probable, and thus dd fusion will be catalysed by
this effect.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Tuggle DG, Claytor TN, Taylor SF;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 221.
"Tritium evolution from various morphologies of palladium".
** Experimental, tritium, res+, no FPH/Jones refs.
In another paper (Taylor et al 1994), this team has already attempted to
detect neutrons, without success; here they look for tritium in the same
experimental setup. Tritium, in any case, may be the better indicator of 'cold
fusion', they say. Various high-purity wires, powder tracks or foils of Pd
were pressurised with high-purity deuterium (max. tritium content 90 pCi/l).
Other samples were subjected to plasma discharge in four new chambers. Tritium
was measured by a Femtotech (not described here) in a gas cycling setup. Some
of the samples of Pd, when subjected to an electric current, showed tritium,
at several sigmas above background, some of them consistently, mainly under
dehydriding (evacuating into the Femtotech circuit). The authors give careful
consideration to spurious sources of tritium, and the main one seems to be
traps in the tritium circuit, where as much as 180 nC was found. Although this
is much more than the amount released from the Pd samples, the team concludes
that there was tritium production here. This cannot be from a "two body dd
fusion" reaction, since no neutrons were found (reported in the companion
paper), but from some other, unknown process.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Waber JT, de Llano M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 496.
"Cold fusion as boson condensation in a Fermi sea".
** Theory, boson condensation, superconductivity connection, res+
Using Born-Oppenheimer separability, Fermi surfaces, the (assumed) band
structure of palladium deuteride, the Wannier representation and by modifying
the Fujita-Watanabe improvement on the BCS-Bose theory of superconductivity,
the authors conclude that 4He is the product of dd fusion, and the energy will
be spread out in the lattice in a Moessbauer-like effect.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Waisman JL, Kertamus NJ;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 101.
"Excess heat; the macroprinciples".
** Theory, macroprinciples, res+.
The authors look at 'cold fusion' in terms of three "macroprinciples": X-heat,
state properties and the effect of excess heat on the lattice temperature.
They grab some macro-equations, present some fine phase diagrams and Pd(H)
isotherms etc, and are finally led to conclude that it is all true, by simply
stating that it is.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Wang X, Tang P, Zhang W, Zhu R, Ding D, Liu H, Chen Z;
Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 192.
"A new device for measuring neutron burst in cold fusion experiment".
** Experimental, neutron detection system, res0.
This paper describes a system suited to measuring neutrons coming in bursts,
which presents some difficulties. 18 3He tubes, divided into  6 groups of 3,
were used, with  coincidence counters and means of measuring the decay time.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Will FG, Cedzynska K, Linton DC;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 209.
"Tritium generation in palladium cathodes with high deuterium loading".
** Experimental, tritium, high loading, res+.
This describes results of total tritium analysis (electrolyte, head space gas
and Pd metal) in 'cold fusion' electrolysis cells, using 2mm diameter Pd wire
in D2SO4/D2O solution, with H2SO4 controls. A series of increasing current
densities with pauses in between led to D/Pd loadings up to 1.00, measured by
evolved gases to 5% accuracy. Control Pd samples were taken and no tritium
found in them (but no results for tritium analysis in the D2O used are given).
Total tritium yields were up to 223 times of the measurement sensitivity, and
the beta spectrum of the tritium showed that substances radiating in a similar
manner to tritium, such as 210-Pb or 241-Pu, were not the source of the
measurements. So the authors conclude that tritium was generated during the
electrolyses.
#...................................................................... Apr-95


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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 14:11:28 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Cindy Lundgren wrote:

> In article <3lcd4c$5qf@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
> Logajan) wrote:
> > 
> > John N. White (jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net) wrote:
> > : I have tested Pt which has been used as an anode and found that it
> > : does not cause H2O2 to decompose. Presumably this is due to a
> > : thin layer that formed on the Pt during electrolysis.
> > 
> > Well, I'm not one to stand in the way of experimental evidence, so I'll
> > have to retract my position on this.
> > 
> > --
> >  - 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    -
> 
> 
> I missed the original post, but it has been my experience that most noble
> metals _will_ decompose hydrogen peroxide. In fact I have used Pt as an
> anode in the presence of peroxide (using Pd as a cathode) and there was
> violent bubbling at both electrodes upon the addition of peroxide. When I
> took the Pt anode out of solution, I could actually see gas evolution off
> of the surface. H2O2 is not very stable and is easily reduced to water
> (H2O2 +2H+ +2e- ---> 2H2O, E = 1.77V vs NHE), even without the presence of
> metals. John, how did you test your anode? The type of oxide formed is
> dependent on potential, but most of the oxides have redox potentials such
> that they are capable of reducing peroxide. (see table of Pt oxide
> Reduction potentials , on pg 322 in "Surface Electrochemistry, A Molecular
> Level Approach", J.O'M. Bockris, S. Khan, Plenum Press, 1993).
> 
> Cindy Lundgren
> 

It may well be that the Pt anode is so covered with gunk after prolonged
electrolysis in a dirty solution, that it's not Pt any more and will refuse
to catalyse H2O2 (or D2O2) decomposition. However, have y'all forgotten the
cathode that is also in the cell? It is indeed a cathode (you get D2 evolution)
and therefore will reduce D2O2, as it wanders over to it. Let's assume that
some D2O2 gets made at the Pt anode (I don't believe it, but let's allow it);
it would then be transported over to the Pd cathode, there to be reduced back
to D2O. All this talk of syrup is pure hype; if you'd get any D2O2, you'd
only get small steady state concentrations of it. In fact, I believe that
this has been looked at. I don't have the Report of the Cold Fusion Institute
but I believe it's in there (Wadsworth?). Does anyone have this?

If you did get D2O2, this would have been noticed in several ways. For one
thing, people who measure gas evolution to get a handle on their current
efficiency (assuming only deuterium and oxygen evolution) would notice;
also, everyone knows that when CNF electrolysists stop the current, the
bubbles stop - they would keep going at both electrodes, as the D2O2
decomposes. Instead, they get slow bubbling at the Pd, as it outgasses the
D2. "Syrup" would be obvious as such, if not by its pale Mitchell-Blue colour
(or whatever colour it really has, I don't care). Whoever suggested that a
D2O2 syrup with a bit of D2O in it (in the Heat After Death cell) would give
100 C by evaporation of the water component and its recondensation at the
cell top, ought to look up distillation of mixtures in basic phys chem books.

Once again: as an explanation for 'excess heat', FORGET PEROXIDE.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.10 / 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.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Apr 1995 22:22:20 -0400
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

David M. Cook (dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
: Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
: > [...] can all be explained by Feynman's dynamic ether.  [...]

: I've never read about this in any of Feynman's papers.  Could you post a 
: reference for this?  Thanks,

: Dave Cook

: PS:  Feynman's seminal papers on Quantum Field Theory (the ones that won
: him the Nobel prize) all take SR as a given.  These papers can all be
: found in a Dover book of reprints edited by Schwinger.  They are very
: readable as technical papers go.  In Feynman's pedagogical writings on SR
: there is no hint of any dissatifaction with the theory. 

Feynman's arguments that I quoted in my posting are based on a dynamic
ether model.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / A Rivero /  theories and estravaganzas...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: theories and estravaganzas...
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 15:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Forwarded message:
> 
> Originally-From: "Max E. Rizzi" <qua1390@cdc712_1.cdc.polimi.it>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: A new Unitary Theory
> Date: 11 Apr 1995 08:03:24 GMT
> Organization: Centro di Calcolo del Politecnico di Milano
> 
>                          Milan (Italy)
> 
> For the first time in Internet, a new unitary physical theory called: 
> The Waving Theory of the Field. 
>  
Hey, it is "second time in Internet", I saw it last week already.

Now for more concpets:

> In this new unitary theory, changing the actual starting hipothesis on 
                 | ---> yep, it conserves probabilities, then.
> the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous -| 
> space-time, that may becomes, the agent and, at same time, the    V 
   |--> Good starting point, but in fact stronger asumption that some current theories.

> In this modular space-time, organized like a discrete lattice, can 

> This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the 
> space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes a new 
> 
> between inertial forces and gravitational forces, deriving a causal 
> explication of a new Waving Quantum Gravity.

> It follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity 
> and an antigravitational Fifth Waving Interaction, derived from the 
>  
> The Compton effect carries a waving explication, derived from an extending 
> of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and 
> 
> The Waving Theory of the Field has been already published in Italy, 
> from the author  Walter  E. R.  Cassani, in october 1984 on a book 
> entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), distributed from 
> author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and 
> Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). 
> No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists.
> 


Hmm I feel I have been catched other year more... It is a running
first april post, is it? And I ven answered such guy...

					Alex

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 16:55:33 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 7 Apr 1995, Tom Droege wrote:
[...]
> >
> >So come on, let's have your ideas on this. But only contributors need apply,
> >others will simply be ignored. In early May, I'll post the list, and ask for
> >a vote. The suggestion with the most votes wins.
> 
> People keep sending me mail saying that they would contribute to a 
> prize.  So it may be worth setting up even if this vote comes out
> otherwise.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 
> 
OK, so there may be two possible scenarios:

1. The vote is something other than this prize, and you might then set up
   the prize anyway; iow, we are talking about two lots of money.
2. The vote is to let you use it for the prize, and you then ask for more
   contributions, define the conditions for the prize, etc.

I now have around 5 emails with suggestions. Keep 'em coming.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:35 -0500 (EST)

dhanwada@iastate.edu (C Dhanwada) writes:
 
-> As I recall the Mars' polar cap ice is condensed carbon-di-oxide,
-> not water. Anyone know more about this?
 
I was thinking it was methane, but you may be right.
 
BTW, I believe that what we know is that there is no water on Mars, not in
Mars.  That is, there is no surface water or water in the atmosphere.
However there is strong evidence that there was a lot of water on Mars at
sometime in the distant past, and I consider it highly likely that at least
some of that water must be locked away withing Mars somewhere.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Vetrano /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:22:23 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3mcn1o$jgd@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> 
> Yes, the experiment Jed saw was not very exciting---an 8% excess
                     *****
> in such an industrial set up could come from a number of things.
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

I believe he meant "Tom D." here.  Isn't that right Barry (don't want to
confuse the issue even more!).

John V.

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Logajan /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:26:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: also, everyone knows that when CNF electrolysists stop the current, the
: bubbles stop - they would keep going at both electrodes, as the D2O2
: decomposes. Instead, they get slow bubbling at the Pd, as it outgasses the
: D2.

I have no intention of crawling into the peroxide camp, but at least at the
cathode, one could imagine that the outgassing D2 catalytically recombines
with the excess oxygen in the D2O2 to render more D2O.  Mr. White would
likely posit that at the anode the "gunk" on the anode prevents decomposition,
so that would explain away the lack of significant bubbling upon current
removal.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Logajan /  Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:27:47 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Coincidentally with the first working day of ICCF5, I received my copy
of the first issue of Mallove's new cold fusion magazine, Infinite Energy,
yesterday April 10th.

This issue of the magazine has 52 black and white pages in 8.5x11 format
between a full color glossy cover (Dr. Stringham appearing on the cover of
this issue.)  The single issue price is $5.95 US, the yearly subscription
prices is $29.95 US, six issues per year.  I think this is a low risk price
and six issues a year is probably a good tuning to the pace of development
in the field.

Text and line art are clear in my copy, but the few internal photos
reproduced with a very limited selection of halftones, and so there
is room for improvement in the future.

Here are some highlights of the contents of this first issue:

A detailed report by Bruce Klein of Bechtel describes his in-house
verification attempts of CEI's Patterson Power Cell patent claims.
The Power Cell uses millimeter sized balls with a polymer core coated
with micron thick layers of Ni, then Pd, or the newest Ni/Pd/Ni, acting
as a cathode material in either a 1.0 molar Li2SO4 lightwater or
heavywater electrolyte.  Klein concludes that his observations verify
the claims, but Klein does point out that over 3/4ths of the generated
heat is not recovered in the coolant output flow, so a detailed
characterization of the missing heat flow mechanisms are warranted.

Just in time, a second article by Dr. Dennis Cravens reports that he
took a Patterson device back to his own lab and improved the thermal
insulation around the device so that he now accounts for up to 93% of
the heat.  He also fully characterized the thermal characteristics
with calibration runs over a wide range of conditions.  Dr. Cravens
reports greater than 1:1 excess power even neglecting to correct for
dissociation loss -- the most conservative estimate.  He will report
the actual ratios at ICCF5 (as a "pleasant surprise") and is hoping to
bring the device as a demo unit.  

Michael Huffing gives a personal (and very believeable) account of how
he came to produce a Griggs like device independent of knowledge of
Griggs own work.  In fact, Huffing only became aware of Griggs after
authorizing his patent attorney to do a patent search in preperation
for his own device.  The article includes drawings of the Huffing device
to the extent that if anyone wanted to reproduce it from this issue
of the magazine, they could (in my estimation.)  Huffing is very honest
in describing the limitations of his testing methods and his trials
and tribulations in his efforts.

Jed Rothwell gives a very understandable description of Dr. Mizuno's
"proton conductors."  Plus several other articles in the magazine that
I won't review here.

So I give this issue a thumbs up with new and latebreaking info plus
informative articles.  I hope future issues maintain this level.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / C Neufeld /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: neufeld@caliban.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 16:58:53 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto - Dept. of Physics

In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU>,
HOLCOMB MICHAEL D <holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>Heavy water is just, well, heavier.  A heavy water
>molecule will weigh about 16/14 = 1.143 times as much as a normal water atom.
>Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill effects of
>drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?"
>
   No, that's not true. The different isotopic mass has a significant
effect. As deuterium is incorporated into tissues it affects the hydrogen
bonding strengths at the replaced sites, including the strength of the
rungs in DNA and RNA.  This, I understand, is the main reason for the
toxicity of deuterium, and a body burden of several percent is enough to
be fatal.

-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student   neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca
 Home page:  http://caliban.physics.utoronto.ca/neufeld/Intro.html
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Nathan Jones /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jonesn@orph01.phy.ornl.gov (Nathan Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 16:43:57 GMT
Organization: Accelerator Based Atomic Physics

In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU> holcomb@stripe.Colora
o.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D) writes:
>From: holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D)
>Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
>Date: 11 Apr 95 01:55:11 GMT

>Jeremy Johnson <jjohnson@puc.edu> writes:

>>On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:

>>> I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>>> 
>>> 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>>> water) on the human body. In what doses
>>> 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>>> 

>>I can't answer the first, but as far as our best information there is 
>>absolutely no water on Mars at all so the chances of there being any 
>>heavy water are rather small.

>This is a nice bit of comlementarity!  I know nothing at all about the second
>question, but I can give a pretty good answer to the first.  Chemically, heavy
>water is just water.  It is still H2O, but the hydrogen atoms have an extra
>neutron, which makes the nuclei deuterons.  Deuterium is not an independent
>element.  Since deuterons are stable, i.e. not radioactive, there are no
>radiation effects either.  Heavy water is just, well, heavier.  A heavy water
>molecule will weigh about 16/14 = 1.143 times as much as a normal water atom.
>Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill effects of
>drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?"

Although not an expert in the field, I would say that this is the appropriate
answer. Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) is just an isotope of hydrogen. Now, if you
want to make it a nasty boy you can make it tritiated ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nathan Jones                     The opinions expressed here are
Accelerator Atomic Physics       obviously my own, as my employer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory    would have used several megs and
jonesn@orph01.phy.ornl.gov       eight lawyers to express theirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesn cudfnNathan cudlnJones cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Lab Master /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: labmas@u.washington.edu (Lab Master)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 11 Apr 1995 17:18:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

<holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

[snip]

[What are the effects of deuterium on the human body?]

OK, whipping out my handy-dandy CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
(1982-83 edition), I see here (under Hydrogen) that "The ordinary isotope
of Hydroben, 1H1, is known as _protium_.  ... a stable isotope, deuterium
(1H2 or D) with an atomic weight of 2. ... an unstable isotope, tritium
(1H3) ... Tritium has a half-life of about 12.5 years.  One atom of
deuterium is found mixed in with about 6000 ordinary hydrogen atoms.
Tritium atoms are also present but im much smaller proportion." Later in 
the section it says, "...deuterium gas is readily available, without 
permit, at about [US]$1/l.  Heavy water, deuterium oxide (D2O) ... is 
available at a cost of [US]6c to $1/g, depending on quantity and purity."

1H = 99.985% of naturally ocurring Hydrogen  (?earth's crust?)
	atomic mass = 1.007825


1H2 (D) = 0.015%  of naturally ocurring Hyrdrogen
	atomic mass = 2.014

[Above is nuclear nomenclature, with leading number being subscripted and 
following number being superscripted.  Below is chemical nomenclature.]


Deuterium, heavy hydrogen (D2), molecular weight of 4.032 (regular 
hydrogen [H2] is 2.0158), colorless gas.

Deuterium oxide, heavy water (D2O), molecular weight of 20.031 (regular 
water [H2O] is 18.0153, colorless gas or hexagonal crystal, density of 
1.105 (water = 1.000), melting point 3.82C, boiling point 101.42C.




Boy, do I need a life, or what?


> Questions about "dosage" become questions like "what are the ill 
> effects of drinking XXX gallons of water in a day?" 

Heh, heh.  Check out: <http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/>.  

-Lab Master
	<labmas@u.washington.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlabmas cudfnLab cudlnMaster cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold ufsion source found on the internet.
Date: 11 Apr 1995 18:34:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <js_vetrano-1104950916290001@130.20.26.106> js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John  
Vetrano) writes:
> In article <3mcn1o$jgd@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> Merriman) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Yes, the experiment Jed saw was not very exciting---an 8% excess
>                      *****
> > in such an industrial set up could come from a number of things.
> > 
> 
> I believe he meant "Tom D." here.  Isn't that right Barry (don't want to
> confuse the issue even more!).
> 

Yes, I meant the experiment TD saw was not exciting compared to 
the different type on which JR reported. Of course, you realize
how easy it is to confuse Jed Rothwell with Tom Droege :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 13:07:15 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3lv5tk$h3u@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> wrote:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
>> <duty cycle post snipped>
>
>   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. 
>
The most important issue here is the COE (Cost of Electricity). Take
for example a 50% duty factor for a 1000 MW design fusion power plant. 
James Stolin is quite correct for pointing out that 2 50% duty cycle 
reactors will do nicely in terms of load balancing.

However, the bad news is that in order to get 1000 MW power for the
entire 100% operation time, one now has to buy 2 power plants. This
means that the total cost has just increased a factor of 2. This is
reflected in the COE since most of the cost of fusion power is capital
cost in the form of construction costs. That is, if we have two different
plant designs that cost the same amount to build and provide the same power
and one has a 50% duty cycle and the other has a 100% duty cycle, then the
cost of electricity from the 50% duty cycle plant will be twice as much.
This is bad news.

-john .w cobb



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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 11 Apr 1995 18:46:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <hm6-QCb.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>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

I often wonder just what Jed's motives are.  They do not seem to be the
advancement of science - else he would learn to conduct his arguments in
a different style.  So, Jed, why are you here?

Tom Droege

PS.  This is not really intended as Jed baiting, else I would be a little
more subtle.  I just wonder.  
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 13:25:54 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <D6JMI0.D34@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <3lhi1b$ekb@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>>Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>>>In article <3lc6tj$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:
>>>> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>>>> 
[much deletia of excellent discussion by many people]

>There is another way around the synchrotron (cyclotron) radiation, and
>that is to reflect it.  In the PLASMAK(tm) generator, the low initial
>BETA at quit low fields is replaced by significant BETA and high fields,
>so it is an important consideration here too.  The solution we are
>relying on is reflection by the hyperdense electron blanket at inner
>wall of the compressed plasma Mantle.  This should reflect through the
>10th harmonic.  Fortunately, the Mantle doesn't have "holes" such
>as beam or vacuum pump ports or RF antennae which are sinks for such
>radiation.  

I am personally sceptical of reflection ideas. Coppi et. al at MIT also
advocate using reflecting walls to get lower beta Tokamaks to access
advanced fuel regimes. I can't point to anything specific, but when I hear
people talk about over 90% reflection, I see a lot of room to be blind-sighted
by the unexpected. No as Paul point's out in antoher post. Why should anybody
believe me just because I say it? Well they shouldn't. They should check it
out for themselves.

However, Paul's comment about 4 pi coverage should be noted. Advanced fueled
tokamaks have troubles because each open port is potentially a source of
syn. radiation leakage, while the complete "mantle" that Paul Koloc speaks
of seems to cover 4 pi ster-radians.

...
>>>time: You need to wait 10 or 20 years before a reactor can feed
>>>itself, much less provide a surplus to start up the next one.
>
>>Yes, this is a tough problem. But military programs have already
>>proved that we can build tritium production facilities. So it is
>>in principle already solved, and I would hope that if we had a
>>tritium program as an adjunct to a DT or D-3He fusion program that
>>we could avoid the (sometimes really stupid) mistakes that led to
>>environmental problems in the past.
>
>As I say, it is ridiculous to even seriously consider D-T.  
>

As a note. When I made my comments above, I was speaking in terms of D-3He
advanced fuel scenario. The problem with that fuel cycle is that 3He
is not naturally occurring. I was referring to a scheme to breed 3He
by breeding Tritium and letting it decay. My reason in pointing it out
is that most D-3He schemes involve tritium in the fuel-cycle, although
not directly puffed into the reactor vessel. So if you are scared of tritium
processing and storage, D-3He may not avoid it for you. Now some people
note that there are large stores of natural 3He on the moon and probably vast
seas of it on Jupiter. However, in my estimation, it is probably cheaper 
and more realistic to breed it from tritium on earth then to travel the
stars to mine it. [of course, when Paul lights his plasmak and flies into
space, maybe he will bring back a few hundred kilos for us to play with. :> ]


>>My real point in putting that statement in all caps was that the current
>>funding path of fusion, at least in the U.S. is nowhere near the level
>>to sustain the progress I outlined. The 50% cut (in real dollars) in the
>>program in the last 15 years has taken its toll. Funding must be increased
>>significantly to pursue this plan. 
>
>The dollar has lost 50% never mind you want a funding increase.  That's
>it, stop funding tokamak now.  We are losing reality here....

My previous comments were a consideration of the level of funding and the
time frame of that funding to have a reasonable chance of programmatic
success. A separate question, which I only hinted at was that society
must make decisions based on that assessment as to whether the benefit
from achieving that goal is worth the collective cost and effort. I tried
to remain at least a little bit neutral on the second question because
I wanted to explore the first. However, I think Paul's comment here is
directed squarely at the second issue and he appears to be saying loudly
that the long time-frame large resource committment I outlined was not
viable. I think such an opinion must be very, very seriously considered.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Michael Huffman /  HUFFMAN DEVICE
     
Originally-From: knuke@big.aa.net (Michael Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HUFFMAN DEVICE
Date: 11 Apr 1995 11:33:38 -0700
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Michael Huffman /  HUFFMAN DEVICE
     
Originally-From: knuke@big.aa.net (Michael Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HUFFMAN DEVICE
Date: 11 Apr 1995 11:54:28 -0700
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access

It's HUFFMAN! Not HUFFING!  ARRG!! I haven't heard that one since grade 
school!!

Michael T. Huffman
knuke@aa.net

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 11 Apr 1995 19:13:35 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Correction, correction!!!!

My mistake.  I mispelled Michael Huffman's last name.

It is Michael Huffman, not Huffing.

My apologies -- I was obviously thinking of the California gubenatorial
candidate Huffington.  Zikes!

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Michael Huffing [Huffman!] gives a personal (and very believeable) account
: of how he came to produce a Griggs like device independent of knowledge of
: Griggs own work.  In fact, Huffing [Huffman!] only became aware of Griggs
: after authorizing his patent attorney to do a patent search in preparation
: for his own device.  The article includes drawings of the Huffing [Huffman!]
: device to the extent that if anyone wanted to reproduce it from this issue
: of the magazine, they could (in my estimation.)  Huffing [Huffman!] is very
: honest in describing the limitations of his testing methods and his trials
: and tribulations in his efforts.

Huffman Huffman Huffman.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 14:23:54 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <3lhi1b$ekb@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>> In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>> Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>> >In article <3lc6tj$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:
>
>> >> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>> >> >    What type will it be?
>
>> >> 	high beta, 40-80%
>
>> >Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
>> >the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
>> >terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).

>> 
>> I think beta=40-80% is very tough, but it is needed to use an advanced
>> fuel. The reason is that advanced fuels burn hotter, and if beta is
>> is low (<10%) then heat loss from Synchrotron radiation will cool the
>> power plant too much. Since I think advanced fuels will be required to
>> solve the neutron damage problem, then very high beta is required.
>> 
>It's interesting how all these questions hang together. If John Cobb
>is right that we can't live with copious 14 MeV neutrons, then we will
>have to go to D-He3, which ignites at higher temperatures, which will
>force us to go to ...

[exposition of the notion of second-stability]

>(1) It was my understanding that machines like PBX were built
>explicitly to access and demonstrate second stability. If they have
>done it, I missed the news. If they haven't been able to, can anyone
>tell me why not?

I'm not qualified, but that never stops me from running my mouth anyway. :>
However, my impression has been that the current understanding has evolved.
It used to be that the marginal stability cnotours were drawn based on
beta and shear. Then for a certain amount of shear, there was no beta
stability limit. However, the idea of stability as a simple function of
2 independant variables becomes much more complex when you add additional
knobs to turn like aspec-ratio, ellipticity, triangularity, and 
profile control. Now you have a very large dimensionality in parameter space. 
It is difficult to explore it adequately experimentally, and you never know 
just how much to trust theoretical calculations either. In fact, the space 
has been so large, that I am not confident we know where to search. Remind
me again, how long  it took us to realize that non-circularity was an
important variable? Maybe we are missing equally obvious knobs today?

The short answer is, I have been to many conferneces with paper and poster
titles saying things like "observations of second stability", but I've also
heard a lot of mumbling under people's breath about non-belief. Soooo
hmm. I guess >I< don't know.

>... As with second stability, people have been talking
>about the potential benefits of small aspect ratio for a long time,
>and at least a few machines have been built and operated. On the other
>hand, for reasons I haven't been able to comprehend, our stellarator
>experts claim that their large aspect ratio is a virtue. So,

I think it is an apples and oranges thing. Because of the nature of
stellerators, they claim to have very little plasma current, and they
really don't want it because they don't want current-driven instabilities.
So in order to get their fields correct, the have to have coils on the inboard
side of the stellerators. Also, I have never heard a very serious
discussion by stellerator afficionados about the very real need for high
beta for commercial success. Now this is may be becuase I haven't been
paying enough attention to them, but I have wondered ... I mean, high-beta
means that there can be significant plasma currents that can modify the
magnetic field structure, and this seems to be anathema to the precise
3-D field-line structures in stellerators.

>
>(2) What has been the experience with small aspect ratio tokamaks? Do
>they confirm the (any) theory? What would be required in a reactor to
>get dramatic benefits (40-80%)? Giving up neutron shielding and ohmic
>current drive?

Again, I know less than I would like to. You might try looking at some
of the published experimental data from START in Britain. There should
also be a conserable number of papers coming from groups that are
preparing proposals for ST experiments (NSTX at Princeton, GLOBUS in 
Russia, ETG in Texas, MAST in Europe). They might point to better
literature trails than I could. I don't think I am able to confirm
any experimental observations of theorietical predictions, although
those working in the area might be able to.


>Two more small points. First, let's just agree that FRC's are better
>than tokamaks. :)

gosh, I wish I could :>

>  (Actually, they are predicted to be MHD
>unstable. The fact that they are experimentally stable could be
>related to the small size of current experiments.) 

Yep, this is (only one) of the big questions.

>Second, the size of
>a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. If we increase beta
>without improving transport, a reactor (or an ignition experiment)
>won't get cheaper, just more powerful. 

Right, excellent point. I try to make this point sometimes, but it often
gets lost. The minimum size of a power-plant modules determined by 
transport (the energy-diffusion coefficient). If you build it too small,
it just won't ignite. The path to small modular plants is through increased
confinement.

I think this is where FRC's have the biggest unknown. I am
pessimistic about FRC transport, because, well I'm a plasma physicist
and we are all pessimists enough to know that if the answer is unknown,
then we can rely on it being the worst possible answer. We do this from
experience. The plasmas are always out to get you.  :> As I have said before,
I have talked to optimists who think they have a schemce that will exhibit
classical transport. If that is the case, then it is a big win.

>Raise beta from 10% to 60% and
>your 3 GW ITER becomes a 100 GW ITER. I know, I know, use a shitty
>fuel and the value drops again, although even with 3 GW D-He3 fusion
>power, 

This is also a good point. There are several simultaneous design 
criteria that must be satisfied simultaneously. However, as I noted 
previously, gross size determines plant cost. So it must be kept low
for economic feasibilty to be reached. Thus it is a necessary, but perhaps
not sufficient condition. If a 1 GW reactor is shrunk too much, than
the limiting design factor will be shield and wall loading. In fact, this
motivates 2 reasons why I like FRC's so much.

1) in FRC's that use D-3He, the fusion products are 4He and a proton. Both are
charged, and many are lost promptly due to bad orbit locations in phase-space.
Now how are they lost? Well, most of the prompt losses proceed axially out
the ends. These particle streams can then be fed into a traveling wave Direct
energy Convertor (inverse linac). This will convert their energy directly to
electricity very efficiently, and they will not strike a wall of shield.
Pretty neat trick huh? (see Momota et. al. Fusion Technology vol. 21 p. 2307
July 1992).

However, if you look at the paper, you will see that the size problem may
be creeping back in. Look at Fig.1. Note how large the direct energy converters
are in comparision with the burn chamber. The entire ARTEMIS design is still
much smaller than DEMO or ITER, but the differential is not as dramatic when
one includes the DEC's in the consideration.

2) In terms of the thermal exhaust, you still have a divertor issue (note,
the particle's in 1 above were high energy 14 MeV protons and 4 MeV alphas.
Here I am discussing the 10-80KeV thermal plasma portion). However, FRC's
have a natural divertor very reminiscent of mirror machines. So it is much
easier to take the exhaust stream, and remove it from the main plasma and
then expend it. So it makes the divertor problems easier to deal with from
a simple geometry standpoint. That is, you swap 2 sets of circles for 
two small disks as the locus of srikepoints, and those disks can be downstream
expanded later. However, don't let me seem glib. Divertors are a BIG issue
and they will still be a problem in FRC's. It is also interesting to note that
some of the proponents of very small aspect ratio spherical tokamaks have
begun looking at this issue. Shaping is more than ellipticity and 
triangularity, it is really all of geometry. One thing they have looked at
is where to place the x-point. From things I have heard, it seems that placing
the x-point closer to the symmetry axis (z-axis), the better the beta
stability limit to some ideal modes (these are theoretical and computational
calculations, not experiments). So as the ST's are made to look more and
more like FRC's, the calculations are pointing to something interesting.
It is also hopes that ST's will be better behaved to n=1 modes (tilts) than
FRC's since the ST's do have some toroidal field. These are interesting
issues.

However, both items point to an underlying theme. Art asks whether there is
more affecting overall plant size than just beta. I agree with him that the 
answer is yes, but in a funny way. As an example, I point out the ARTEMIS
study. There the burn chamber was indeed reduced as expected from increasing
beta. However, some other components still came out large like the inverse
linac and the venetian blind system and the electrostatic Direct Energy
Convertor. However, the overall plant was still smaller and the cost estimates
are consequently smaller. This indicates to me that most of the current
size requirements in ITER and DEMO are driven by having beta too low. But
this is really argument from anecdote. However, I think it points to an
underlying design philosophy that is valid.

>the divertor problem becomes 5 times harder since those
>friendly neutrons are no longer carrying away 80% of your power.

Not really. The prompt loss protons take away a lot of the same power that
a DT machine would channel into neutrons. That is, fusion products are
not all trapped in FRC's either. The difference is that the FRC swaps the
blanket for the direct Energy convertor. The win is that the DEC is
more efficient because it doesn't have a thermodynamic loss. The lose is that
the FRC still needs a blanket, although it does not have to be so beefy. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 12 04:37:09 EDT 1995
------------------------------
