1995.04.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
Date: 17 Apr 1995 17:11:37 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <9504171513.AA91294@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:

>There is a related subject I would like to explore in the future.  That
>is the question as to why mass spectrographs have been the only instuments
>employed in CF research to attempt to establish the production of 4He.

Do you mean besides the obvious reason?
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Willy Moss /  Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
Date: 17 Apr 1995 18:55:39 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

joi@ozemail.com.au (Jonathon Alexander) wrote:
>
>Feb 1995 Scientific American ran an interesting article on 
'Sonoluminescence'
>by Seth J. Putterman......>
>It appears there is a possibility that all cold fusion phenomena are 
>related to
>high pressures. There is some envelope used by hot fusion engineers 
where
>a given combination of plasma density, temperature and containment time 
is
>required for fusion, but the various dimensions can be traded-off. If 
>pressure
>and was high enourgh, it might act similarly to a high enough 
temperature to
>cause nuclei to come close enough for fusion.
>
>
In the SL regime, DD or DT fusion cross sections vary as T^7 * rho^2. For 
all practical purposes, you have to do it with temperature.  You just 
can't get high enough densities; and you need temperatures near 1keV (11 
million K). At the center of an ideally driven SL Deuterium bubble (my 
calculations show that) you can't get much more than a few tenths g/cc 
density. However, kilovolt temperatures may be possible. But keep in mind 
that the reaction volume is so small that practical power is probably not 
attainable; even verifying thermonuclear SL fusion would be nontrivial. 
These physics limitations seem inconsistent with cold fusion experimental 
measurements. So there is little liklihood that there exists any linkage 
between real physics and high pressure induced cold fusion.      


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 /  Jason /  [Q]:Properties of Uranyl Nitrate
     
Originally-From: "Jason................" <jac3f@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.rese
rch,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
Subject: [Q]:Properties of Uranyl Nitrate
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 15:40:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

I am working on a project that involves a fluid fueled reactor that 
produces Mo-99 as a fission product.  The fluid fuel being considered is 
a Uranyl Nitrate (UO2(NO3)2) solution.  I am currently using Flow3d to 
model the system and also MCNP to do criticality studies on the sytem.  
My major stumbling block at the moment is little detailed information as 
to the properties of Uranyl Nitrate (mainly thermodynamic).  Does anyone 
have any idea as to where I could obtain good values to be used over a 
low temperature range (40-100 C) and atmospheric pressure?  References to 
or the properties themselves would be greatly appreciated.

Jason Carroll
Dept. Of Mechanical, Aerospace, Nuclear Engr.
University of Virginia
jcarroll@Virginia.edu




cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac3f cudlnJason cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Tom Droege /  Your Address for Certificate
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Your Address for Certificate
Date: 17 Apr 1995 20:38:16 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Anyone who has moved since they sent in their money for the
Griggs trip should let me know promptly so it is sent to the
right place.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Simon Robinson /  basics of nuclear fission and fusion
     
Originally-From: simon@oxshott.demon.co.uk (Simon A. Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 21:30:35 GMT
Organization: The Robinsons

Looking for a faq for an essay I have to write - I just need the basic stuff
- this isn't for a degree - as long as it's got lots of *good* physics in it.
  Does anyone have any suggestions?  :-)

-- 
Simon A. Robinson

Physicists have all the charm.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensimon cudfnSimon cudlnRobinson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 17 Apr 1995 19:41:52 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <USE2PCB356846592@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>-> 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.
> 
>Dick, I think you are using some bad reasoning here.  Basically you are talking
>about osmosis here, and all that happens is that the partial pressure of helium
>inside the bubble and outside the bubble equalizes.  After stabilization, the
>quantity of helium inside the bubble would be identical to the amount that
>would be there if you were to open it to the air.  The only difference is that
>the denser gases would be excluded from entering the bubble.

Well, Dick only said the *relative* concentration of Helium goes up,
compared to the denser gases.  This is certainly possible, provided 
the slower-diffusing gases have not had time to come to equilibrium yet.
The relative concentration of He inside the bubble can be nearly 100%
if the container is designed to exclude all other gases for long 
timescales, but to allow easy diffusion of He.

>I think a better argument would be that the palladium absorbs helium from the
>air, and when you introduce hydrogen, this previously absorbed helium is forced
>out.  That may not hold water either, but I am not aware of any laws that such
>and argument would violate.
> 
Actually, I think what this shows is that short of extremely thorough
and meticulous experimentation, of a kind not yet seen in this field,
the only way to prove He production is to produce so much helium 
(a) that the partial pressure of He in the system exceeds atmospheric 
pressure in the lab outside, (b) even after you subtract the *maximum* 
amount of helium that could be found inside the system to begin with.
Of course, to do that, you'd also need to have an incredible amount
of heat production, or else you'd need to run the experiment for
a long time.  But it seems to me that a significant helium overpressure
would be compelling evidence.  Can you make helium balloons with CF cells?

--Bob Heeter, musing solely on his own....


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 16:21 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> The way you originally phrased the problem, it was not clear to me that you
-> understood that even if there was an overpressure of gas inside the glass
-> tube, He would diffuse through from the atmosphere anyway.
 
Yes, it would.  But the result would be the opposite of what one would be
looking for to confirm generation of He.  That is, if the pressure inside the
glass tube was twice that of atmospheric, then the He would diffuse until it
balanced on both sides.  That would leave the He concentration (as a
precentage of total gas) at 1/2 that of normal atmospheric He levels; certainly
nothing to get excited about.
 
                                                            Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Scott Little /  Re: I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I need info on heavy water
Date: 18 Apr 1995 03:40:36 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <D762D5.AJ2@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:
>

>Since you are writing a screen play about this, there is one other 
>interesting point about this substance.  One must be licensed to have
>ANY of it stored in a concentrated form, and one may not collect it.  
>These licenses and the Q-clearance that is needed is granted by the DoE. 
>

Are you sure, Paul.  We bought some about 5 years ago (you can guess why!) 
from a chemical supply house and they just mailed it to us...no muss, no
fuss.  Have things changed?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Alan M /  Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:43:53 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <19950417.223035.35@oxshott.demon.co.uk>  simon@oxshott.demo
.co.uk (Simon A. Robinson) 
writes:
> Looking for a faq for an essay I have to write - I just need the basic stuff
> - this isn't for a degree - as long as it's got lots of *good* physics in it.
>   Does anyone have any suggestions?  :-)
> 

Have you tried reading a textbook? Or is that no longer allowed under the
terms of your curriculum?

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Logajan /  Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
Date: 18 Apr 1995 05:56:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dr. Paul Koloc was nice enough to send me copies of three of his published
papers on the hot fusion PLASMAK theory a couple of days ago.  However, due
to publisher copyright concerns I can't e-duplicate them, so instead, I have
interpreted them (using my layman's eye) into a little tutorial.  The tutorial
is available via the world wide web at the url in the signature lines below
and is expanded from my previous version.

Comments on clarity and correctness requested.  Thanks.  All tutorial
errors are mine and not Dr. Koloc's, since I haven't had him review it.

p.s. I understand our service recently had a DNS change, so some requests
might not be stable for a couple of days.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Michael Brown /  Re: pluto north pole
     
Originally-From: michaelb@hobbie.bocaraton.ibm.com (Michael Rogero Brown (Sys Admin))
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: pluto north pole
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 20:35:52 GMT
Organization: IBM, Boca Raton, FL

Benjamin Jay Britton (brittobj@ucunix.san.uc.edu) wrote:

: >I'm a computer science honours student. I am doing a project that will allow
: >one to interactively visualise galaxies. I have one major problem though.

: maybe someone like you could help me.
: i am looking for info about the recent discovery at the north pole of pluto.
: any info?  thanks!

You mean they discovered the Mi-Go's city on Yuggoth?

--
----------All Opinions Expressed are MINE, not IBM's--------------
Michael Rogero Brown             (uKR1 System Administrator)  
IBM (uKR1 Development)       TEL/TIE   (407) 443-6400   
Boca Raton, FL               Internet:  mikal@bocaraton.ibm.com

If you think I speak for IBM, then I've got some swamp land^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
real estate here in Florida to sell you.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmichaelb cudfnMichael cudlnBrown cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 /  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: 19 Apr 1995 01:47:44 GMT
Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX)

rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>
> In <3mhvk1$9rh@vent.pipex.net> JohnatAcadInt <ah63@solo.pipex.com> writes:
> >rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
> 
> >> 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.

It is the foregoing that has made you seem a Platonist - and not only
in my estimation! See the other postings. Had you said something along 
the lines that "In my opinion, this is the best fit we have and it seems 
to be confirmed by the evidence ... and seems ever so clear and beyond
challenge because ... "

The problem about evidence is that it is almost always conflated with
proof!

> >> 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.
> 
> >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.
> 
> You evidently are a person of conviction.  You call a spade a spade,
> and if you see a hoe and can't tell the difference you call that a
> spade too.  You have sized me up, decided what must be the core of
> what I believe, and have attempted to tear me to shreds on that
> basis.  But how accurately have you sized me up?
 
I am sorry if I came across as thinking any of the above: actually,
I see you as someone who takes ideas seriously, and no earthy metaphors
can equate to or confirm a commitment to truth. The answer does not lie
in the soil!

> Let's start with my purported cavalier attitute to data.  I said
> (referring to Wallace), and you quoted, "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." That statement of mine
> would seem to suggest that I do place value on the data.  But, let me
> be more explicit.  I can conceive of many types of data which would
> be logically consistent with SR, yet which might persuade us that SR
> does not provide a very accurate picture of reality.  Oh, by the way,
> I am not interested in that real estate you have on tap.

Data are gathered - not conceived, as you seem to believe! There is no 
genuinely scientific content in such a method. If you are not even at
the data-gathering stage, you are in no better a position than a Flat
Earther ( though, to be fair, I know that you are not at all thus).
 
> >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!
> 
> I don't have any serious objections to what you have just said.

This, however, is only an objection to historical accounting: I am not
averse to the notion that data can get tighter and tighter whereby we
can more nearly control and predict our environment to serve our 
purposes. I am against free-lunch epistemology, though I do realise
this has important implications for metaphysics.
 
> >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.
> 
> Ironically, I have been criticizing platonism on another thread.
> Here I am accused of being an adherent.  I must wonder at your
> cavalier attitude to data, that you can pull the accusation of
> platonism out of your hat without any basis to substantiate it.  As
> for a priori synthetic knowledge, I am not sure what level of
> understanding I would have to reach in order to gain your approval.
> I understand it well enough to consider the whole idea absurd.  Does
> that suffice in your eyes?

I accept that you are not a Platonist, but I can only reiterate that
if you think both the theory and the measurements are laid up in
heaven you will attract, at the very least, misunderstandings. 

> >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. 
> 
> Now let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that failing a
> test does not disprove a hypothesis.  I claim that SR is
> irrefutable.  I am having great difficulty seeing why it is that you
> think you are disagreeing with me.  Perhaps you think me timid for
> only listing SR as irrefutable, instead of including all hypotheses
> as you seem to have done.

It does not follow from failing its test that SR is refutable -:, and
so on. "Adjustable" might be a better word. I never challenged the
notion of probabalistic refutability of SR, only knee-jerk acquiescence
in the received wisdom.

"Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient
premises". - Samuel Butler 

I don't object at all to the "best-fit" argument, and I think, as has
always been the case, present theories will prove pragmatic and 
votive and be judged on their results. I follow Lakatos
here in assimiliating mathematics to empirical science, though I 
object when Popper and Feyerabend are seen as conformist, on the one
hand, and anarchist, on the other. 

I am also deeply uneasy about the way we regard mathematicians,
physicists, biologists as "peripheral phenomena". 

> >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.
> 
> I am amused by your interest in crystal balls.  You seem to assume,
> for no reasons that I can tell, that I claim crystal ball gifts,
> and you criticize me for it.  Yet in the same breath you claim
> crystal ball powers for yourself which enable you to read my
> intentions.  I regret to inform you that your crystal ball is in
> a state of serious disrepair.

Not at all! I remember that you dismissed the need for data, unless
they agreed with your data. Consequently, you don't, cannot believe, 
that there is any need to "go back and find out what went wrong." 
Once you have dismissed the need for data, everybody is on an equally
preposterous footing.The balls are in fair working condition and I
am doing my best to make them available to you.
 
> >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?.)
> 
> I agree with you that hypotheses are preferred on a practical basis.
> I don't know where you get your ideas as to my so-called curious
> grounds.  I will let others judge for themselves whether my arguments
> are faulty.  I am not claiming to be the ultimate authority.

The notion that we are unpacking the mysteries of the universe haunts 
this discussion. One is reminded of the Drake equation as regards SETI;
of Penrose's two books, and Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" - not
to mention Gerhard Wasserman's "Shadow Matter and Psychic Phenomena". 
 

> Might I suggest that there is an authority on this.  There is an
> international standards body.  It sets the official definition of the
> standard for measuring time, and it sets the official definition of
> the standard for measuring distance.  If you were to consult those
> standards, you would discover that, under present day standards of
> measurement, the velocity of light in vacuum is constant by
> definition.  The unit of length is defined in terms of the unit of
> time, so as to make it constant.  The standards are defined to be
> portable, so that the standards in any inertial frame would give the
> same constant value for the velocity of light.  It is the adoption of
> international standards based on SR which makes SR irrefutable.  If
> Wallace's data shows that the velocity of light is not constant, that
> demonstrates that Wallace did not follow the international standards
> in obtaining those measurements.

It is for Wallace to defend himself against received standards, though
if we last only another hundred years, I'll bet his protestations will
seem obvious and quaint. 

What I ought to add is that, though I am familiar with "Shadows of the
Mind" and "The Physics of Immortality", I think them controversial only
because we have banished meaning and purpose from our lives.

You are at least a reasonable interlocutor.

Kind regards


John Murphy ( with apologies for brevity of this)



Mephistopheles
   	
	They never dream the devil is about,
	Not even if he has them by the collar.

Faust

	Good evening, gentlemen.


				- Auerbach's Cellar in Leipzig


(from Goethe's Faust,Part 1, trans. Philip Wayne, Penguin Books)


			     ***


A sweaty song! It stinks of politics.
A nasty song! Thank God in constant prayer
The Roman Empire isn't your affair.
I thank my stars, and think myself the wiser,
That no-one calls me Chancellor or Kaiser.
Yet every house must have its corner-stone,
So let's elect a Pontiff of our own,
And honour him and set the man on high -
You know the qualities to choose him by.

                    - Goethe, op. cit.


What's a question that contains Tipler for no apparent reason?




cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenah63 cudlnJohnatAcadInt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / John Logajan /  Re: too many insults
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: too many insults
Date: 19 Apr 1995 01:59:44 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: but will not stand by and see Tom Droege, Steven Jones, Dick Blue,
: yourself and many others called names

Well, what happens when a neutron hits a uranium atom?  The uranium
atom can split and release more neutrons, which in turn split more
uranium atoms -- resulting in a runaway chain reaction.

Now lets say half a dozen friends of the above mentioned people decide
to respond to a single posted insult -- then we have six new return
insults.  Each blast into one camp results in a multitude of return
blasts -- runaway chain reaction.  Pretty soon some people are spending
most of their posts responding to and engaging solely in insults.

I hate to give this advice because it is probably advice I can't even
follow myself, but the only solution I can see is to turn the other
cheek.  I really don't think the "mud" sticks, so there really isn't
that much reason to need to even acknowledge it with a rebuttal.

I believe the vast majority of readers here can see through the mud
and rate mudslingers accordingly.  So let's all improve our rating
in the reader's eyes by not ourselves engaging in mudslinging --
advice that is as much directed at myself as anyone.

--
 - 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:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Joseph Wood /  Re: Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
     
Originally-From: bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu (Joseph Bret Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.med,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
Date: 18 Apr 1995 01:44:24 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <D73ozq.AFH@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <3mpiiu$ore@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu>
>Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water
>Bret Wood [ bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu) wrote:

>> In cases where the competing reactions are first order, with irreversible 
>> first steps, the change in product ratios A:B(H) vs A:B(D) is equivalent to
>> the difference in reaction rates, R[A]:R[B(H)] vs R[A]:R[B(D)].
>> (where A is the product of reaction A, R[A] is the rate, B(H) is the product
>> of reaction B, when hydrogen is used, B(D) is with deuterium, etc)
>> And, anytime two species give different products under the same reaction
>> conditions, they are displaying different chemical behavior.
>
>  There are quantitative, not qualitative, difference in the products
>for the different isotopes.
>  The result is that isotope effects include differences in
>densities, diffusion and reactions rates, and as you
>correctly point out, equilibrium distributions.
>
>   The statement perhaps ought be corrected further to:
>
>"Deuterium and Hydrogen behave in a chemically similar manner 
>but differ in reaction rates leading to quantitative differences."
>

Actually, this is kind of a weird situation because the only case where you
can have two reactions with the same (Atomic # wise) reactants, under the
exact same conditions, but which give different ratios of products is when
the kinetic isotope effect is invoked.  Otherwise the reactants would be
indistinguishable, and therefore the products and their amounts MUST be 
indistinguishable in the two reactions.  (Although I'm sure there are some
weird nuclear-state physics things which could make two otherwise identical
atoms distinguishable, but I doubt they would impact chemical behavior)

The reason I chose to refer to this quantitative difference as a qualitative
one also is two-fold.  First, the product solution will have different chemical
properties using deuterated, vs normal reactants.  If the reactants are 
separated, then it is a quantitative difference.  But, while they are still
mixed it is qualitative also, because the mixtures will have different chemical
properties.  It's kind of similar to the way a chemist would refer to a 10%
aqueous ethanol solution having different chemical behavior than a 90% aqueous
ethanol solution.

Second, I didn't have my physical organic chemistry text at hand, so that I
could look up the proper terminology, so I used my gut feeling along the lines
above.....  :)

Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that the D2O will exchange
hydrogen with many species in the human body, and those deuterated species 
will have different kinetics than their undeuterated counterparts.  This
change in kinetic behavior can disrupt the proper biochemical functioning of
the body and, if a large enough amount of deuterium is involved, result in
death.

I would doubt that any of the lethal aspects of D2O actually involve D2O 
itself.  First off, D2O will rapidly be converted to two equivalents of
DHO as soon as it is ingested.  And, it doesn't matter if D2O, DHO, or H2O
is the reactant in a reaction, the product will still be the same, except
it will have a D, or an H (or neither for some reactions).  In order for
the kinetic isotope effect to take effect, there has to be two competing
reactions, and one of them has to involve a bond other than the D(H)-X bond.
Since the bonds in a water molecule are indistinguishable, water can't
be the host molecule for a kinetic isotope effect reaction.  (Also, the
fact that water exchanges protons rapidly is another reason it can't be 
used for kinetic isotope effect experiments.)

-Bret Wood
-bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbretwood cudfnJoseph cudlnWood cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
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, 18 Apr 1995 07:16:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU> holcomb@stripe.Colora
o.EDU (HOLCOMB MICHAEL D) writes:
>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.

>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?"

Heavy water may have just one of it's hydrogen atoms include deuterium
while the other is ordinary protium.  The fact that it is heavier changes
its chemistry and reaction rates, which effect body chemistry.  So "just
heavier" isn't quite the whole picture.     

Also, one method of concentrating heavy water is through distillation.
Mar's low gravity well will allow evaporation of water from the planet
but such vapors can be recondensed on the gas planets and Oort rubble. Since
some of this rubble can be disturbed into cometary orbits, the condensate
can be returned to the planet in the form of collisions with said comets' 
ice covering cargo.  So, it just could be that like some of the CO2 that's
left preferentially behind, protium-deuterium oxide or deuterium(2) oxide 
will also be favored to remain in the permafrost and CO2 water ice mixture 
of the Martian snow cap.  

Really, who cares, the moon and Jupiter have all the 3^He we need and
CA has all the Boron we need.  As for the protium?  Well we could easily
get along with our own personal supply.  But there I go thinking like
a rocket scientist.   

>>> 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_.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Scott Little /  What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 18 Apr 1995 13:39:48 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

It's already Tuesday and there's been no word from ICCF-5...at least
here on my server....

Did one of the CF demos work so well it blew Monaco off the map?  :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 18 Apr 1995 14:38:28 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <D6wt3L.Jpq@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> In article <AWC.95Apr6142707@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson       
TOK  ) writes:
> >In article <D6JJyA.B3E@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
> What is the duty cycle now, without fusion burn, say so that the machine
> will maintain super "H" mode operation?

Current experiments are limited to a few seconds every ten or twenty
minutes (although I believe JET and Tore-Supra have had discharges
over a minute), sometimes by power supplies and sometimes by flux in
the ohmic heating coils. Such things are easy to extrapolate to a
reactor grade plasma.

> >> Also, there are other fatigue modes that you might have missed.
> The wall deterioration from fusion product exposure.

This is a problem, but it has nothing to do with pulsed vs. continuous
operation.

> >> >This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
> >> >securely stored off-site. ...
> 
> The [tritium] processing or recovery surfaces (volume) are huge, and
> that means there is likely to be some level of unavoidable leakage.   

Tritium loss from a storage facility will be negligible. Processing
facilities are more critical, but those who know more than we say
tritium losses from a fusion reactor can be kept below tritium losses
from a fission reactor. "Some level" is here small enough.

> Have you really considered alternatives and let in competition.

A laboratory would have a lot to gain by becoming known as the one that
found a better way than the tokamak. I don't want to belittle the
magnitude of institutional inertia, but there are strong factors
encouraging fusion scientists/institutions to look at
alternatives. But they always will and should end up pursuing the
concept that looks most promising.

> 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.  

It may have been investigated, but I don't believe compression heating
is a significant heating source in TFTR. Would you like to set me
straight with a reference?



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

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Logajan /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
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: 18 Apr 1995 15:44:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: Heavy water may have just one of it's hydrogen atoms include deuterium
: while the other is ordinary protium.

I've always wondered why this wasn't the typical case -- in fact, I can't
imagine how one would ever concentrate just the double-D versions
if there wasn't some natural favoritism for the formation of double-D
molecules.

When you buy a liter of D2O, I presume you get nearly 100% D and very
little protium, less than 1%.  Not the 50/50 mix you'd expect.

I mean, given the rarity of D in natural water, the chance that a water
molecule would retain two D's in a sea of H's seems anti-probablistic.
So if the starting material is mostly HDO rather than D2O, how do we
end up with D2O concentrate????

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
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: 18 Apr 1995 16:22:45 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3n0mp4$8ug@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
> : Heavy water may have just one of it's hydrogen atoms include deuterium
> : while the other is ordinary protium.
> 
> I've always wondered why this wasn't the typical case -- in fact, I can't
> imagine how one would ever concentrate just the double-D versions
> if there wasn't some natural favoritism for the formation of double-D
> molecules.
> 
> When you buy a liter of D2O, I presume you get nearly 100% D and very
> little protium, less than 1%.  Not the 50/50 mix you'd expect.
> 
> I mean, given the rarity of D in natural water, the chance that a water
> molecule would retain two D's in a sea of H's seems anti-probablistic.
> So if the starting material is mostly HDO rather than D2O, how do we
> end up with D2O concentrate????
> 

Successive concentration.  The molecules are small enough that the one amu
difference between H2O and HDO allows distillation of the water to
concentrate the water in the HDO species (I assume that's how it's done). 
If you then distill the remainder (bottoms), you can further concentrate
the D's in the H's.

As an example, assume that at one stage you have a 50/50 mix of H and D. 
Then, you'll have 25% H2O, 25% D2O, and 50% HDO.  A distillation will
result in a vapor enriched in the H relative to the D, and a bottoms
product enriched in the D relative to the H.  Then, distill the bottoms to
further remove H...

Actually, it's a bit more complex than that, having to do with tall
distillation columns that send the bottoms to the next stage and the
distillate to the previous stage, but you get the idea.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Logajan /  too many insults
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: too many insults
Date: 18 Apr 1995 17:12:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

The passing of ICCF5 seems like a good point in time to again request that
we, on all sides, endeavor to keep our discussions here on the high ground
and to avoid the never-ending self-sustaining exchange of insults.

There is too much water under the bridge to ever figure out who insulted
whom first or most, and who is ahead or behind in the battle.

I am specifically *not* going to mention names in public or attempt to
justify or minimize any individual's past behavior.  Rather, I'd like
to put the past behind us and look once again to the future, with our
focus once again centering on scientific questions and answers.

Truce?

Thanks in advance.

--
 - 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:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:32 -0500 (EST)

rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
 
-> Well, Dick only said the *relative* concentration of Helium goes up,
-> compared to the denser gases.  This is certainly possible, provided
-> the slower-diffusing gases have not had time to come to equilibrium yet.
-> The relative concentration of He inside the bubble can be nearly 100%
-> if the container is designed to exclude all other gases for long
-> timescales, but to allow easy diffusion of He.
 
As I indicated later in the post this only happens if you have a vacuum or
partial vacuum in the glass. I don't think that is relavent to the device under
discussion.
 
-> Actually, I think what this shows is that short of extremely thorough
-> and meticulous experimentation, of a kind not yet seen in this field,
-> the only way to prove He production is to produce so much helium
-> (a) that the partial pressure of He in the system exceeds atmospheric
-> pressure in the lab outside,
 
Since the experiment is at or above atmospheric pressure, then a measurement of
a greater than atmospheric concentration by percentage should meet this
criteria.
 
-> (b) even after you subtract the *maximum*
-> amount of helium that could be found inside the system to begin with.
-> Of course, to do that, you'd also need to have an incredible amount
-> of heat production, or else you'd need to run the experiment for
-> a long time.  But it seems to me that a significant helium overpressure
-> would be compelling evidence.  Can you make helium balloons with CF cells?
 
Basically that means that if you have a 2:1 ratio between the level of helium
in the experiment and that in the atmosphere, then you meet that criteria.
 
I personally think the ratio should be higher than that since helium could be
trapped in the palladium, or at least there should be some type of base line
experiment run to determine how much if any helium there is in the palladium.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Marshall /  (no subject)
     
Originally-From: John Marshall <Pmarshall@mv.mv.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:13:45 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

 	I'm only 12 and I know tons about Fusion... But I don't know enough so 
could ypu people tell me some thing and also what is this electronic war 
I keep hearing about?


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPmarshall cudfnJohn cudlnMarshall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Marshall /  Fusion?
     
Originally-From: John Marshall <Pmarshall@mv.mv.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:16:46 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

	I'm only 12 and I know tons about Fusion... But I don't know enough so 
could ypu people tell me some thing and also what is this electronic war 
I keep hearing about?


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPmarshall cudfnJohn cudlnMarshall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Marshall /  Fusion?
     
Originally-From: John Marshall <Pmarshall@mv.mv.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:17:01 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

	I'm only 12 and I know tons about Fusion... But I don't know enough so 
could ypu people tell me some thing and also what is this electronic war 
I keep hearing about?


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPmarshall cudfnJohn cudlnMarshall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / John Marshall /  Fusion?
     
Originally-From: John Marshall <Pmarshall@mv.mv.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:17:10 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

	I'm only 12 and I know tons about Fusion... But I don't know enough so 
could ypu people tell me some thing and also what is this electronic war 
I keep hearing about?


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPmarshall cudfnJohn cudlnMarshall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 /  SJGreene /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: sjgreene@lanl.gov (SJGreene)
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, 18 Apr 1995 17:53:00 -0600
Organization: The Land of Enchantment

What do you get by reacting gasseous deuterium with oxygen? D2O! The stuff
you buy is not distilled or concentrated from ordinary water.

-- 
Ensconced amidst the bubonic plague, hantavirus, rattlers, cactus,
mountain lions, bears, coyotes, skunks, raccons, deer, elk, ponderosa
pine, aspens pinon, mesas, canyons, mountains, lava, ash, sunshine,
air, reactors, lasers, accelerators, explosives, and computers
of Los Alamos, New Mexico (USA!)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensjgreene cudlnSJGreene cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: too many insults
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: too many insults
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:49:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3n0ru2$b9c@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>I am specifically *not* going to mention names in public or attempt to
>justify or minimize any individual's past behavior.  Rather, I'd like
>to put the past behind us and look once again to the future, with our
>focus once again centering on scientific questions and answers.

John, surely you remember that most of the ruckus has been 
caused by most of us -- and yourself included -- simply asking
for more details and then replying that without such details the
evidence shown for CNF is non-compelling.

We all apparently gave egregious insult by finding possible sources
of errors, suggesting that the laws of physics are probably pretty
close to correct if not spot on, and that unusual results required
unsually complete data.

I'm willing to call a truce, but will not stand by and see Tom Droege,
Steven Jones, Dick Blue, yourself and many others called names when
asking civil questions. And having perfectly sensible questions
ignored and treated as irregular.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: too many insults
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: too many insults
Date: 19 Apr 1995 01:25:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3n0ru2$b9c@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> The passing of ICCF5 seems like a good point in time to again request that
> we, on all sides, endeavor to keep our discussions here on the high ground
> and to avoid the never-ending self-sustaining exchange of insults.
> 

I really don't take electronic insults seriously---the medium lends
itself to overstatement due to lack of emotional feedback. I 
say let people get as hyperbolic as they desire---its amusing if
nothing else.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / James Stolin /  Re: Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
Date: 19 Apr 1995 01:16:16 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

  The discussion in this thread leads to an interesting question.  Please 
no flames-I know it's not fusion but it should lead to some interesting 
discussion.  If I am dying of thirst, do I drink the beaker of D2O or not?
 <G>  If this would not put me near the 30% (?) toxic level stated on the 
MSD, will it sustain life until I can obtain H2O?  How about the same 
question for T2O?
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but should be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 19 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
