1995.04.12 / 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: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 06:04:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3lv5tk$h3u@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
>> <duty cycle post snipped>
>
>Paul,

>   All you need is more than one fusion reactor if you have less than 
>100% duty cycle.  If the duty cycle is 50%, you build two reactors.  If 
>duty cycle is 33%, you use three reactors.  Better yet, have a "spare" so 
>you can provide downtime for maintenance.  Use a "cookie cutter" approach 
>to keep design costs the same for one or one thousand reactors.  Size 
>and/or cost will be the limiting factor with this approach.  However, the 
>redundancy of multiple reactors should be readily apparent. 

This is basically a good idea for most reasonably functioning systems. 
My best guess is that a commercial electric power generating tokamak 
(IF ONE COULD EXIST) might run as long as a month before the wall would
have to overhauled (replaced or at least torn down).  That would take
about a year.  With a bit of planning for overrun, we might need up to
twenty tokamaks to assure the power keeps coming.  

Now here's the rub, you will also notice that they need an "intermediate"
tokamak after ITER but before the "commercial power generating" is built.  
Well the first twenty that is.  ALSO, you will notice that the size of
each machine must be very much more huge than the last (in spite of 
Heeter's) switched position to reflect the maximum USDoE/PPPL can hope 
to get from this congress.   

So by the time it came to build those commercial toky power reactors, 
the beasts will require every help from nature and huge virgin territory 
(nearly unpopulated), for site.  There is only room for two such beasts, 
and those would be on the poles.  Then the geo-vertical field (corrected 
for declination and drift) could help to confine the plasma, and there 
would be a cooler ambient with which to increase the Carnot efficiency 
slightly.  The Artic tok would be made to operate under the ice cap, 
since it would soon find itself there.  

Now the cost of just one of these monsters is already beyond the welfare-
state strapped ecomomies of the world, or soon will be, when the actual 
proposed expenditures are made and cost overruns are covered.  

Consider!  Would you use vacuum switch tube technology to build a computer???

                           The TOKAMAK: 
                      make them a MONUMENT 
              to the redicovery of the PLASMA state.  
              It was first discovered by the GREEKS; 
                    but they called it FIRE.  

>Jim Stolin, owner  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reason for inconsistent cf results
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reason for inconsistent cf results
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:25:17 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 5 Apr 1995 jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

> Some cold fusion experiments show excess heat without x-rays
> or neutrons (e.g., McKubre), another shows tritium only (e.g. Claytor, Will), 
> another shows helium but no tritium or neutrons (e.g. Miles), and so on.
> 
> The reason for the evident inconsistencies is clearly (IMO) that it is 
> difficult to get different instruments to show even small fluctuations 
> at the same time. 
> 
> { 8^)=| 
> 
> --Steven Jones

This is just typical of your average skeptic; he refuses to believe in
three impossible things before breakfast. Steve, don't you remember that
all this has been Explained? The disparate results are, of course, due to
the fact that 'cold fusion' is not one hitherto unknown nuclear process,
but about twenty quite different ones, all hitherto unsuspected, and all
disobeying the known rules of nuclear physics. 

{:]

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

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / 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: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 06:38:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr6142707@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc.
ug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <D6JJyA.B3E@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>> >> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>> >> >    What type will it be?

[speaking of tokamak]

>> Art, that seems to give the device a duty cycle of 2/3 or maybe 3/4,
>> which means the "off power" loss time for power production should be 
>> made up from that thermal reservoir as well as needed recharge energy.  

>When I said "many hours", I was thinking 8 to 16, giving a duty cycle
>of at least 89% and full operation during peak demand hours. Either
>way, I don't see the duty factor as making or breaking the concept.

What is the duty cycle now, without fusion burn, say so that the machine
will maintain super "H" mode operation?  

>> Also, there are other fatigue modes that you might have missed.

>What do you have in mind? It's hard to talk about modes that have
>not occurred to anyone.

The wall deterioration from fusion product exposure.  Heard of Lidsky?
Dismissing him for his editorial article from the Fusion Center at
MIT doesn't exactly put him out of existence.  If anything it was 
the cause for MIT's cutbacks by some very po'd types at OMB.  

>> >This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
>> >securely stored off-site. ...

The processing or recovery surfaces (volume) are huge, and that means
there is likely to be some level of unavoidable leakage.   

>Hydrogen (all isotopes) are somewhat more difficult to handle than,
>say, natural gas, but the technology is mature. Activation due to
>tritium decay is negligible since the low energy beta hardly
>penetrates. 

Not for Greenies that assume all hydrogen isotopes become heavy water 
and are inhaled and become part of the brain.  Those "low penetration"
betas can definitely cause a greeny's counter to click.  Politics, my
boy.  Your lucky that Germany doesn't have such groups, or you also
might possibly be on your way out of a job.  

>Somewhat more of a problem is the bubbles that develop
>from the decay product helium.

Just include a bit of Gas-X in your metal alloys.   :-) No, it is a 
problem and one especially sensitive in limitors and first walls.  

>> >I'd put my money on plasma facing components (or at least divertor
>> >plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
>> >soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).
 
Doesn't take much. 

>Erosion during disruptions, activation by neutrons, oxidation and
>volitalization during a loss of vacuum while hot, and eddy current
>forces can be added to your list. Still nobody knows whether graphite
>or tungsten or both or neither will be a suitable material. This fall
>the graphite divertor tiles of ASDEX Upgrade will be coated with
>tungsten so we can answer some of these questions. At least Alcator
>C-Mod has had good experience with their plasma facing components out
>of molybdenum.

But why do you bother when you can evolve the machine to a PLASMAK(tm)
embodiment and utilize dense plasma walls.  No deterioration, no
problems.   

>> But Art, that roof shingling action (starting "y" before finishing and
>> fully analyzing "X")  is what has put us in this predicament, with loads 
>> of tokamaks   (now only tokamaks!) that have learned (or at least have 
>> incorporated) LITTLE or NOTHING from each of their respective previous 
>> versions.

>I think the procedure has been fairly efficient. At least we're happy
>with the design of ASDEX Upgrade and JET turned out OK. TFTR, of
>course, wishes it had a non-circular cross section, and that DIII-D is
>such a useful machine is due more to luck than foresight. 

Have you really considered alternatives and let in competition.  NO!
How would you judge "fairly" or "happy".   

I suppose that in the eye of conditioned beholders this true.  However, 
for example, consider that without a circular cross-section how much 
adiabatic compression heating would there be.  ATC is not a negligable
or trivial source of plasma warmth for the TFTR.  

>In any case,
>overlapping is better than turning your physicists out on the street
>while your engineers work and vice versa. Another way to do it is to
>bet on two horses, like Garching did with stellarators and tokamaks.

Well at least Garching has engineers.  The old versatile machine
there was a masterpiece of engineering, and I would say because 
of this more significant physics was generated pound for pound than 
any other tokamak in the world.  My guess is that some masterful 
technicians probably played significant roles.   


>> Wouldn't you want your fusion thingy whatever it is to be capable
>> of driving manned planetary missions???

>I'd also like it to run my teleporter and mix me a dry martini.

Well with an advanced highly functioning fusion technology driven
economy, how far behind could those realities be? 

>-- 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

                      ASDEX: the P-51 of fusion.   

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re:       Re: Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:       Re: Fusion timetable
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 06:45:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3lvbbi$q62@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <199504050818.SAA07532@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>  
>rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>> 
>> So perhaps the DOE funded programs should just surrender 1 years 
>> funding, and distribute it evenly over the various alternate 
>> concepts. If Paul is right, and workable solutions really are cheap 
>> just because they work, then the funding that this would produce, 


>Well, that would be tough, though, since the existing programs hardly
>live high on the hog.  .. . 
>              ..  . . .. .The grass is always greener... Or, perhaps
>in this case, one should say the plasma is always hotter ...

                           and "denser".    

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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 12 Apr 1995 07:30:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

You know, I think it is really in bad taste to post personal criticism of
someone in a medium which is read all over the world.  

Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / E WIESZCZECINSK /  Need help on heatpipes!
     
Originally-From: wieszcze@nevada.edu (ELIZABETH WIESZCZECINSKI)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need help on heatpipes!
Date: 12 Apr 1995 01:17:58 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwieszcze cudfnELIZABETH cudlnWIESZCZECINSKI cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Harry Conover /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 12 Apr 1995 13:19:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

ElliotKenl (elliotkenl@aol.com) wrote:
: You know, I think it is really in bad taste to post personal criticism of
: someone in a medium which is read all over the world.  

Ordinarily, I would agree with you.

In this case, however, the personal attacks Jed has initiated against
Steve Jones, Tom Droege, and many the others who challenged him, have 
earned Jed a special place in the hearts of many here.  Unlike Jed, most 
professionals can seriously disagree on scientific interpretation without 
finding a compelling need to impugn an adversary's competence.  

So, in this case, with a man's statements and closed, inflexible 
positions a matter of record, the question becomes not what, 
but why, an many of us here are now curious re 'what makes Jed 
run?'

                                         Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Richard Blue /  What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 15:24:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

What is right about the E-Quest experiments? Nothing!

Anyone who has read sci.physics.fusion for an extended period should
begin to understand that measurements of power inputs and heat
outputs aren't always as simple and direct as they may seem.  My
understanding of the E-Quest measurements leaves some doubt about
their choice of instrumentation for measurements of input power.
You may think that they have made sufficient control measurements
to demonstrate proper energy balance for cases that do not produce
excess heat, but doing a proper control measurements may be very
tricky.  For example, if D2O is replaced by H2O as a control does
the coupling of ultrasound power into the sample volume remain
unaltered?  My answer is most probably it does not.

Now the most startling claims from E-Quest relate to the production
of 4He and 3He.  Here the claimed results get lost in a fog of obvious
misinformation.  The basic problem has to do with the detection of
4He and 3He at levels which could well be the result of contamination
from other sources.  It then comes down to a question of adequate
controls to eliminate all other possibilities as being the sources for
the detected helium.  That is a tall order!

The fog that surrounds the helium claims largely has to do with supposed
comparisons between the levels observed and the "natural" background levels
for the detected gases in the atmosphere.  When the results are stated
as being N times the concentration in the atmosphere I presume the reader
is expected to conclude that any value for N greater than one clearly
rules out the possibility that the atmosphere is the ultimate source of
the helium being detected.  That is false and deceptive reasoning!

To illustrate my point consider the following.  I start with a quartz
bubble a few cm in diameter and evacuate it as well as possible to
a pressure of say 10^-8 Torr.  We then close it off and wait for a
sufficient period before the contents is analyzed for helium.  If I
find that the contents is 10% helium while the concentration of helium
is only a tiny fraction of that can I assert that the observed helium
did not come from the atmosphere?  I think not.
Clearly the use of such a comparison by E-Quest or anyone else is
evidence for saying they don't even understand the problem.  I think
that sheds some doubt on the likelyhood that they will perform a properly
designed experiment.

What could be wrong with the experimental design at E-Quest?  I don't
have enough information from reliable sources to say, but I did see
mention of a "rubber membrane" at one point.  If there is, in fact,
a rubber membrane in the E-Quest device I think the case for saying
the helium comes from the atmosphere is greatly enhanced.

But, you protest, what about the 3He?  Here again the comparison
given is not appropriate to the experimental conditions.  There is
also the appeal to the authority given by the fact that measurements
were made at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Let me simple mention
that if I were to name labs where the concentration of 3He in the
atmosphere may be unusually high, Los Alamos ranks well up on the list.
Was the ratio of 3He to 4He actually measured for the atmosphere
in the room where the E-Quest results were confirmed?

The final question, as always, is replication.  That doesn't not just
mean counting the number of times the same errors have been repeated
by the same people using the same methods.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: Need help on heatpipes!
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Need help on heatpipes!
Date: 12 Apr 1995 17:51:53 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3mf9o6$5h7@news.nevada.edu>, wieszcze@nevada.edu (ELIZABETH
WIESZCZECINSKI) says:
>
>
OK, I have built a few, and can give you the address of a real 
expert.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Erik Francis /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 15:45:04 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

holcomb@stripe.Colorado.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D) writes:

> 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 

Chemically, hydrogen and deuterium are _nearly_ identical, but not 
entirely -- after all, one is twice (a little more than twice, actually) 
heavier than the other, and there are going to be physiological effects.  
For reasonable doses, these effects are negligible (such as the dose of 
DHO/D2O that everyone gets regularly), but if you give someone a diet of 
heavy water, they will get sick and die:  this has been demonstrated in 
laboratory mice.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA ... GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Psi ... ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
"We all may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Brian Peterson /  just wondering...
     
Originally-From: peterson@iadfw.net (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: just wondering...
Date: 12 Apr 1995 19:49:11 GMT
Organization: Internet America, Dallas Texas

hello all,

I'm not a scientist but I do have an intense interest in science and physics 
and so also subscribe to Scientific American.  In a recent issue of the 
magazine, there was an article describing the phenomena of sonoluminescence.  
Because of the intense pressure and temperature experienced at the point of 
luminescence, couldn't this technique be used to initiate a small scale fusion 
 reaction?  Please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but ever since I read 
the article this question's been bugging me...

-Brian Peterson
peterson@iadfw.net
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpeterson cudfnBrian cudlnPeterson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 12 Apr 1995 20:21:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <USE2PCB908464696@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL  
DUDLEY) writes:
>  
> 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

Good to see that they are demonstrating the anticipated quality of
a magazine called Infinite Energy. Even if it were the April fool's
issue (is every day April 1 in CF land :-), the letter from the deranged
reader (is that their demographic? ) was not well written or entertaining.

And the researcher who is creating new bacteria from energy bursts
may be onto something bigger than CF---direct conversion of
electricity into living matter! :-)




--
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 / Willy Moss /  Re: just wondering...
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: just wondering...
Date: 12 Apr 1995 20:40:19 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

peterson@iadfw.net (Brian Peterson) wrote:
>hello all,
>
>... In a recent issue of the 
>magazine, there was an article describing the phenomena of 
sonoluminescence.  
>Because of the intense pressure and temperature experienced at the 
point of 
>luminescence, couldn't this technique be used to initiate a small scale 
fusion 
> reaction?  .....
>
>
Yes, we believe it may be possible, although the thermonuclear neutron 
rate will be very small.  We have been actively researching the subject 
computationally and experimentally.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Joe Guokas /  Re: Warm Fusion
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Originally-From: visor@globalcom.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warm Fusion
Subject: Warm Fusion
Date: 12 Apr 1995 16:03:30 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 01:58:21 PDT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In response to visor's:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Subject: Warm Fusion
Originally-From: visor@globalcom.net
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 01:58:21 PDT
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.21156.797677309.visor@globalcom.net.globalcom.net>

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

If you are using ultrasound, you may want to read Seth J. Putterman's
article in the February 1995 Scientific American.  Putterman and Bradley
P. Barber observed intense energies and pressures and extremely short,
periodic light pulses from single bubble sonoluminescence experiments.  I
should note that Prof. Putterman does not describe these anomalies as
"cold fusion."  

There was much interest in sci.physics.fusion about sonoluminescence a few
months ago.  So you may want to look in the archives.  Steven E. Jones
said he was observing some sonoluminescence experiments with his very
sensitive detectors.  However, if I remember correctly, he did not report
any anomalous radiation.   

Good luck with your research,
Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Some comments on cold fusion source found on the internet.
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some comments on cold fusion source found on the internet.
Date: 12 Apr 95 20:25:27 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <D6rw9A.GG3@news.cern.ch> msevior (Martin Sevior) writes:


>...................... They only see an effect in the case of heavy
>water with Palladium or Titanium targets. In these cases the net heat
>excess is a factor of 2 to 10 times the input energy. 
>
>However their most intriguing result is the measured production of 4He and
>3He from runs that also produce excess heat. These experiments took place
>at Los Alamos National Lab and the Helium measurements were made at
>Rockwell Rocketdyne. They report concentrations of 4He about 100 times
>atmospheric and levels of 3He over 5 orders of magnitude above atmospheric
>concentration of 3He.............. 



What would be intriguing to me is if they also measured some neutrons
above background, and if the amount of Helium correlated with the
amount of excess heat.


But hey!  That's what skeptics are all about!



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  JohnatAcadInt /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com>
Originally-From:  John Murphy at ah63@solo.pipex.com
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: 13 Apr 1995 01:43:29 GMT
Organization: PIPEX news server (posting doesn't reflect the views of PIPEX)

rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>
> In <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) writes:
> 
> Wallace spews out more garbage, including:
> 
> >In reply to Sean, there is a vast array of evidence that contradicts Special
> >Relativity but because of pathological and political reasons, most modern
> >physicists refuse to acknowledge it.
> 
> Anyone who claims this simply does not understand special relativity.
> Wallace has been saying this sort of nonsense for some time now.
> Wallace doesn't understand special relativity.  It is time for him
> to stop this ridiculuous farce of his.
> 
> The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
> consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
> data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.
> It is as simple as that.  Wallace won't admit that, and his failure
> to admit it reveals that he does not know what he is talking about.
> 
> Many physicists are quite aware of the irrefutability of special
> relativity.  They are well aware that if the data disagrees, then
> it is the data that is wrong.  That is why, when Wallace points to
> data which he claims is contrary to SR, these physicists ignore
> Wallace.  They know that the data must be wrong.  Wallace incorrectly
> interprets this as evidence of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Wallace needs to study SR, and find out what it is all about.  When
> he finally understands why SR is irrefutable, perhaps he can have
> something to say about whether SR is or is not a well chosen theory.
> But until Wallace understands SR sufficiently well to realize that SR
> is irrefutable, he should stop his ridiculuous campaign of
> harassment.
> 

So, when Wallace finally agrees with you he will discover that, all 
along, he had simply made logical errors ( would be nice to see you 
sometime about some real estate we have on tap). This follows because
of your cavalier attitude to data.

Arguably, since Hume there has been no "objective proof" that one 
scientific theory is better than any other. Science still seems to have
done quite well.

All science does is create and then test hypotheses - which can neither
be proved nor disproved. No empirical proposition of a general sort can 
be proved, though there are striking regularities in nature, and our 
power to predict likely outcomes of our actions is based on these ...
or, more properly, based on our expecations!

It is above all based on statistics: there is no such thing as a fact!

The Platonist (?), Mr Rickert, is right to defend our gains, but even 
Russell, never mind Whitehead, would have not have embraced his hubris
in respect of his subject. One has to wonder whether he really under-
stands what it would mean to have a priori synthetic knowledge of the
world he and I share, but if he does, I hope it includes` hot runners
at Epsom and, given so, he and I should get together for our mutual
benefit.

What we all do together is create hypotheses, and then test them. 
Passing the test does not prove the hypothesis. Nor does failing the
test disprove it, because both the hypothesis and the means of testing
it are the product of our time and culture, and, as has been repeatedly 
shown, we are only too willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake
of our "results". Throughout history people have defended anything 
from square wheels to phlogiston. 

In the sense that we have gained greater control over our world,
scientific knowledge is cumulative. It is not however cumulative
in the way Mr Rickert intends, since this would imply crystal-
ball gifts which would eliminate the need for science and, to boot,
save us much time, money and energy. More seriously, it would also 
mean that given his enviable knowledge, the company that employs him
would destroy its competitors in perpetuity.

All the same, if a hypothesis passes the test, we can proceed with 
greater confidence to apply it to a wider range of phenomena. If it
fails the test, we will at some stage have to go back and find out
what went "wrong". This is the only reason we eventually come to 
prefer one hypothesis over another. It is done on practical
grounds alone, not because the one has been proved and the other 
destroyed - and certainly not on Rickert's curious grounds, which
seem to amount, since his arguments are faulty, to little more than 
the notion that anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid 
or ignorant, Wallace being, seemingly, a soft target, and a source
of Brownie points. Ho hum. (He doesn't seem to need our help, does he?.)


John Murphy



There is a story told about Diderot at the Russian court whereby he
was accosted and humiliated by Euler with a bit of algebra followed by 
"Donc: Dieu existe repondez!" One imagines that Mr Rickert would have
enjoyed the upper hand in such a situation.


"It used to be the custom among philosophers to think that causal
laws can be stated in the form "A causes B". - Bertrand Russell


"There is no such thing as a fact." Dr W E Deming



[ P.S. - Any complaints about my typing should be sent to Marilyn
Beacon - or whatever she's running under these days. The stuff
seems to be everywhere and my nightmare is that her prog might be
the Omega Point. We may need Minsky yet!]


Originally-From:  John Murphy at ah63@solo.pipex.com

 
 
 




                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
                               

                                                


things has certainly improved since we left the Cave.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenah63 cudlnJohnatAcadInt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 02:13:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
: > There was also a letter to the editor, which had to have been put in there
: > because this was the April issue.

: Good to see that they are demonstrating the anticipated quality of
: a magazine called Infinite Energy.

Just to keep the record straight, Marshall was referring to the contents
of issue #9 of Wayne Green's "Cold Fusion" magazine and not Mallove's
first issue of Infinite Energy magazine.

--
 - 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:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 23:21 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
-> Good to see that they are demonstrating the anticipated quality of
-> a magazine called Infinite Energy. Even if it were the April fool's
-> issue (is every day April 1 in CF land :-), the letter from the deranged
-> reader (is that their demographic? ) was not well written or entertaining.
 
This was not Infinite Energy, that is Mallove's magazine.  This was in Wayne
Green's magazine "Cold Fusion", which use to be Mallove's magazine and is what
I would call a newsletter, stripped down from the early days of a glossy
magazine.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 / 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: 13 Apr 1995 03:55:43 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3mgdl3$dsa@newsbf02.news.aol.com> elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)  
writes:
> You know, I think it is really in bad taste to post personal criticism of
> someone in a medium which is read all over the world.  

Tell that to Jed :-)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  JohnatAcadInt /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com>
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: 13 Apr 1995 05:32:48 GMT
Organization: PIPEX news server (posting doesn't reflect the views of PIPEX)

rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:

<snip>

> I hope that is still approximately the case.  But that does not
> prevent a scientific theory from having a large component which is
> mathematical and irrefutable.  Generally speaking, established
> scientific theories are not refuted.  Rather, they are displaced by
> new theories which more fully encompass the data.
> 
> >As far as Wallace's data is concerned, it may be in error.  But such 
> >error cannot be established merely by the inconsistency of it with SR.

<snip>

Because not everybody here will have ploughed through Kant, I think I 
ought to say what Rickert's position implies as regards synthetic
a priori propositions. It does not imply only that the earlier is
consistent with the later, but that the later is in principle *derivable* 
from the earlier, in the sense, roughly, of Aristotelian teleology. 
Given Rickert's position, if I am not mistaken, the trial-and-error 
process which has taken us from the cave to our centrally-heated rooms 
with our 486s has been an unnecessary journey: forget the Nobel Prizes, 
a reasonably bright person could have deduced it all from the outset
of the quest for knowledge. What a pity it's all taken such a long 
time! 

It would be churlish of me to pinion Mr Rickert for his prose alone,
yet anyone who takes the time to examine it will quickly see that
he uses "irrefutable"in quite disparate senses. In the first of these,
he identifies mathematics with a world beyond challenge which if and 
only if it is true is irrefutable, and I hope I do not misrepresent
him here -: . In his second sense, he suggests, with no apparent 
consciousness of having changed horses, that old theories are displaced 
by new in, perhaps, the way that one soap powder is displaced by its 
predecessor - though he seems to think the new powders necessarily 
better by deduction. Personally, I prefer to see whether the stains 
come out.

Russell was fond of a Berkeley quote: "Whether mathematicians, who are
so delicate on religious points, are strictly scrupulos in their own
science? Whether they do not submit to authority, take things on trust.
and believe points inconceivable [-:]? Whether they have not their 
mysteries, and, what is more, their repugnances and contradictions?"

A further favourite might have saved him a dismayed Press:

"The case", said Sherlock Holmes, as we chatted over our cigars that
night in our rooms at Baker Street, 'is one where ... we have been
compelled to reason backwards from effects to causes."

Mr Rickert would be well-advised, at least epistemologically speaking,
to take account of the force of the word "compelled" as used here
by Conan Doyle -: He might find it helpful, in addition, to take 
consider the views of the likes of Sarfatti and Hoyle, et al. , who 
have a fierce respect for evidence, and charmingly (well, mostly) 
dismiss the idiotic constraints placed on science, knowing that:
 
                 "There are fine things yet to hear
                  And good things to be seen -
                  Before we go to Paradise 
                  By way of Kensal Green." - G K Chesteron

I have to add that I find it very hard to work with
people who habitually argue from their conclusions to their 
premises, yet it's hard to catch yourself at it, isn't it!



Kind regards

John Murphy



"Was a time when blokes sat perched in trees -
With hardened look and evil leer.
Then they were lured from their primeval ease,
Into an asphalt world, where, having scraped the skies,
Downwards again they malignly peer." 

- Borchert, trans. by my friend S.Banks.










 


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenah63 cudlnJohnatAcadInt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr 13 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
