1995.04.19 / Ralf Guenther /  impact fusion
     
Originally-From: yuigu01@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Ralf Guenther)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: impact fusion
Date: 19 Apr 1995 06:51:39 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen


Apart from the conventional (laser, light or heavy ion driven) inertial
confinement fusion scenarios, there have been some experimental approaches
using directed kinetic energy to initiate fusion reactions: "cluster
fusion", which was later identified as an artefact, some russian
experiments using low velocity projectiles (by "low velocity" I mean
200 m/s..), "dust" particles accelerated electrostatically to very large
velocities (up to 80 km/s). 
In contrast to the conventional icf targets consisting of pure hydrogen 
(D or a D-T mixture) these approaches used deuterated targets, e.g. LiD,
TiD, PdD, because fusion rates in solids might be enhanced by collective
effects and/or screening of coulomb forces. None of these experiments
produced reproducible fusion reactions significantly above experimental
background. 
There seems to be a combination of mass and velocity not used until now in
this context, which can be quite easily realized (if a large light gas gun is
at hand...): gram sized projectiles with velocities up to 10 km/s. Does
anyone of you know if such experiments have been performed in the past, and
what do you think they should yield? 
Thanks in advance!
													   
													   
													   
													   
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenyuigu01 cudfnRalf cudlnGuenther cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Janne Wallenius /  Muon catalysed fusion preprints
     
Originally-From: Janne Wallenius <janne@bear.kvac.uu.se>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon catalysed fusion preprints
Date: 19 Apr 1995 10:56:04 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University

The muCF workshop in Dubna is two months away, by now.
Anyone else of the myon catalysts besides S.Jones lurking around?
I would greatly appreciate any preprint of your presentations,
or merely a copy of the Presentation abstract.
My contribution on the q1s-problem can be obtained on the WWW-site

http://falcon.kvac.uu.se/groups/QCmcf.html

Not recognise my name? I started my graduate studies for
Piotr Froelich right after the Uppsala convention, and
recently spent half a year with Kamimura in Japan.

- Muons in the sky! -

 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Janne Wallenius
Department of Quantum Chemistry
Uppsala University
E-mail: janne@kvac.uu.se
 ---------------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjanne cudfnJanne cudlnWallenius cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Willy Moss /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: 19 Apr 1995 15:00:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

John Marshall <Pmarshall@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>	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?
>
>
John,
It seems you know at least as much about fusion as anyone in this 
newsgroup.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Scott Mason /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Scott Mason)
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 11:50:29 -0400
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.sci.physics.new-theories, Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>I agree. On the other hand I haven't heard of claims from the people that
>make the measurements that they've found evidence of violations of SR.

    Actually, on the astro scale, there are some... well... inconsistant
data.  Some pulsars have been found to emit gaseous "blobs" at very
high speeds.  Some at FTL speeds.  I'm not suggesting that SR is incorect,
but the jury is still looking for a satisfactory explanation for this
data.  The only current explanation (that I know of) that reconciles
this data with SR is that these blobs are being emitted a very minute
angles wrt the earth/pulsar line of sight.  The only problem with that
is that it would suggest that pulsars have a significant tendency to
emit these blobs twords the earth.  Not very likely.

Scott
--
    The comments or opinions expressed here are not necessarily those
of NSWC, US Navy, Federal Government, or any agent thereof.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmason cudfnScott cudlnMason cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: too many insults
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: too many insults
Date: 19 Apr 1995 17:12:06 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3n1oq3$dj2@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <3n0ru2$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)
>
>

I agree.  One lives by ones manners.  One reason for posting if for 
the vanity of being read.  Another is to present one's ideas for
criticism.  But if one's posts are skipped or killed then neither
purpose is accomplished.  All that is then left is that the post is
on the sps record.  A question for the lurking historians.  Is the 
Congressional Record ever read by historians as a serious source?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Steve Anderson /  Re: pluto north pole
     
Originally-From: steve@chubsoft.demon.co.uk (Steve Anderson)
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 23:36:44 +0000

In article <jeffo.103.2F8EE049@rayleigh.lanl.gov>
           jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov "Jeff Olson" writes:

> In article <3mmgso$i32@ucunix.san.uc.edu> brittobj@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Benjamin
>  Jay Britton) writes:
> 
> >>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!
> 
> The April 1 issue of Science News has some information on the apparent ice cap 
> on Pluto's north pole, imaged with Hubble's faint-object camera.  They cite no 
> other published paper, so I'm guessing it hadn't been published in a 
> peer-reviewed journal as of April 1.
                              ^^^^^^^


yeah yeah. Any snaps of the Plutonian polar bears?

-- 
Steve Anderson
				"Evil Bill, I got a full-on robot chubby!"
** Product not 			
PC compatible **						   	  ;
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnAnderson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 19 Apr 1995 17:16:25 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3n0ff4$9i9@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>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?  :-)

The Bill Page re-mailer now has a nice starting write up.  Will some
one more computer literate than me repost it here - Bill?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 /  Johmann /  Another thumbs-up for Infinite Energy
     
Originally-From: johmann@aol.com (Johmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another thumbs-up for Infinite Energy
Date: 19 Apr 1995 15:32:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Overall, I am very pleased with this new magazine. It was better than
I expected, and I was expecting it to be good because its editor,
Eugene Mallove, had already proven himself as a competent editor with
the first three issues of "Cold Fusion" magazine.

As an improvement, it seems Mallove has learned from his previous
experience: gone are the irritating complaints about "skeptics" and
those who want to hold back progress. Who cares about such people,
anyway? Not me, and I don't want to read about all the assholes in the
world. Fortunately, Mallove spares us his earlier bile.

Another improvement I see in Mallove's editing is a nice focus on
attaining Scientific-American style readability. He said he was going
to do this, and he has delivered. Not a single article required
specialist knowledge to understand, because unfamiliar concepts get
explained when they are used, and there aren't that many unfamiliar
concepts presented in the first place. If you can read Scientific
American, you can easily read Infinite Energy.

Note that some of the articles are less technical and more
human-interest. For example, the lengthy article by Michael Huffman,
about his trip down Griggs lane, was a real treat. It is a fascinating
first-person account, and a real eye-opener on Griggs-related devices.

There are other human-interest treats, and I'll just mention that O.J.
gets double-billing along with CF in a cartoon from the Copley News
Service.

Overall, Infinite Energy is a superb effort, and I highly recommend it
to anyone who wants to keep up with CF activities. However, as someone
else (was it Merriman?) has asked, will it survive, given the early
demise of "Cold Fusion" magazine? Overall, I see many encouraging
signs in this magazine that it will survive: specifically, there are
many and various ads, well placed and tastefully positioned here and
there. Thus, Mallove seems to be doing a good job at getting ad
revenue.

Another good sign for Infinite Energy is its roster of talent: Hal Fox
is the associate editor. Chris Tinsley is a contributing editor
(Chris, from the UK, was one of the bright lights in the early
Mallove-led "Cold Fusion" days). Our own Jed Rothwell is another
contributing editor and has an article on Mizuno's proton conductors
(a nicely done article, by the way, with human-interest content about
the history of Mizuno's CF efforts). Given Jed's Japanese language
proficiency, he is just the man to cover the Japan beat. And the
scientific advisory board is equally solid looking: Robert Bass, John
Bockris, Dennis Cravens, Peter Gluck, and Edmund Storms. Overall,
Infinite Energy has a very nice lineup of talent, in all departments.

What about the name, Infinite Energy? My own reaction when I first saw
it was real surprise because it sounded like a wild exaggeration at
first glance. But once I got over my initial shock, I found that I
liked the name, and that it seemed strangely appropriate. Oddly enough
on the first page of Infinite Energy is a picture of Arthur C. Clarke,
and the text of a letter in which he reports essentially the same
reaction to the name. Then, on the next page, Mallove gives his own
justification for the name. Whoever thought up this name, I have to
give him credit, because we really don't need another title playing on
"cold fusion" in some form. As it is, the subtitle is "Cold Fusion and
New Energy Technology", and that is enough.

Okay, I am at the end of my review. Unlike John Logajan who wrote a
positive review but neglected to mention how to get it, here are the
acquisition details:

   Infinite Energy
   published 6 times a year
   subscription price is $29.95 (US and Canada)
                      or $49.95 (outside North America)

   Phone: 603-228-4516 (Visa or Mastercard; I called and got my
                        subscription this way)

   Address:  Infinite Energy
             P.O. Box 2816
             Concord, NH   03302-2816



Kurt Johmann
--
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjohmann cudlnJohmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 /  prasad /  ICCF5?
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF5?
Date: 19 Apr 1995 20:24:09 GMT
Organization: sometimes

So what happened in Monaco?  Or is it still happening?

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / T Lazio /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph W. Lazio)
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 21:33:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Astronomy, Cornell University

>>>>> "SM" == Scott Mason <mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil> writes:

SM> In alt.sci.physics.new-theories, Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
>> I agree. On the other hand I haven't heard of claims from the
>> people that make the measurements that they've found evidence of
>> violations of SR.

SM>     Actually, on the astro scale, there are
SM> some... well... inconsistant data.  Some pulsars have been found
SM> to emit gaseous "blobs" at very high speeds.  

 Not pulsars, but quasars.  Pulsars are stellar remnants within our
Galaxy; quasars are the cores of other galaxies.

SM> Some at FTL speeds.  I'm not suggesting that SR is incorect, but
SM> the jury is still looking for a satisfactory explanation for this
SM> data.The only current explanation (that I know of) that reconciles
SM> this data with SR is that these blobs are being emitted a very
SM> minute angles wrt the earth/pulsar line of sight.

 Indeed, this is the currently accepted explanation because SR
combined with simple geometry can explain the superluminal speeds observed.


SM> The only problem with that is that it would suggest that pulsars
SM> have a significant tendency to emit these blobs twords the earth.
SM> Not very likely.

 I believe that this issue is still unresolved, though an area of
active research.


--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph W. Lazio    | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42:20:08 N  76:28:48 W  305 m alt.
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlazio cudfnT cudlnLazio cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Dick King /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: king@ukulele.reasoning.com (Dick King)
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: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:09:43 GMT
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA

In article <D77yvC.M0I@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <holcomb.797565311@stripe.Colorado.EDU> holcomb@stripe.Col
rado.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.
|> 
|> 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.   
|> 

I suspect that Wendy Wolk wants to know whether Mars may have excessive Heavy
Water so that the colonists can start getting sick from having their drinking
water come from the Martian ice caps, not so the colonists can set up a nuclear
fusion plant.


-dk
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenking cudfnDick cudlnKing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Dallas Kennedy /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kennedy@quark.phys.ufl.edu (Dallas Kennedy)
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: 20 Apr 1995 03:39:10 GMT
Organization: National Center for Supercomputing Applications

The FTL expansion of gaseous blobs from pulsars is not in contradiction to
SR.  All Einsteinian relativity requires is that *local* velocities of matter
be less than c.  A distant observer can see, as a optical illusion, a gaseous
jet heading out transversely across his line of sight at a speed greater than
c.  Many books and articles discuss this; e.g., Nigel Calder's _Einstein's
Universe_, and articles in _Scientific American_.                    Dallas
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkennedy cudfnDallas cudlnKennedy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Alan M /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:46:26 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3n0ff4$9i9@boris.eden.com>  little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> 
> 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?  :-)
> 
>

Perhaps surprisingly, Jed found time yesterday to post to CompuServe
following hie return from Monaco.

He said that there was a strong indication of polarisation of results ("some
people getting routinely up to 500% or 1000% efficiency, and others unable to
get positive results at all" - one almost hesitates to ask whether this might be
in some way correlated with the quality of measurement <g>). He said nothing about
the expected Byelorussian 'Super-Griggs' device, which leads one to suspect
that its impact was somewhat less than earth-shattering.
 
-- 
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:
cuddy19 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / John Logajan /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 20 Apr 1995 06:25:14 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

One thing that Bill Page reports is that CETI (Clean Energy Technologies,
Inc) had a demo cell in operation at ICCF5.  This would be the so called
Patterson Power Cell, small polymer beads first plated with a copper
starter coating, and then micron thick layers of nickel, palladium,
and then nickel again.  They are then subjected to electrolysis in a H2O/
Li2SO4 electrolytic bath.

Yes, it was a *lightwater* demo and it was apparently producing 300%
excess heat without even accounting for electrolysis losses -- which
if there was no recombination, would put the excess heat at a much
higher level.  The ICCF5 demo was operated by Dennis Cravens, according
to Bill Page's report.

The Patterson Power Cell patent (US # 5,372,688) was published in
Wayne Green's "Cold Fusion" issue #7.  And Bruce Klein's analysis
was published in issue #9.

Also, Gene Mallove's first issue of Infinite Energy, included Bruce
Klein's analysis along with Dennis Cravens' improved thermal accounting
experiments on the PPC at his home laboratory.

Incidently, Dennis Cravens was featured in the very first issue of
the then Green/Mallove "Cold Fusion" Magazine, if you want to see
some nice pictures of the quality of Dennis Cravens' earlier work.

Lightwater excess heat --- hmmmm.  Theorists, where are you?  :-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / John Logajan /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 20 Apr 1995 04:24:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: The Bill Page re-mailer now has a nice starting write up.  Will some
: one more computer literate than me repost it here - Bill?

To avoid a mess of redunant reposts, I have instead put up Bill's
report at my www home page url (below) for access by www browsers.
I hope Bill posts the original here, though. :-)

It is also available via ftp at:
   ftp.skypoint.com/pub/members/jlogajan/iccf5.txt
   [However, ftp here is currently bogged down because some other member
    is running very popular ftp stuff.]

I will add copies of all ICCF5 summaries that I get my hands on.  I am
expecting another report from someone else very soon, and he also promised
to post it to s.p.f.  So stuff is coming!

A big thanks to all those who took the effort and expense of attending and
who will grace us with their observations.

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.19 / Wolfgang Ratzka /  Re: pluto north pole
     
Originally-From: wolfgang.ratzka@physik.uni-regensburg.de (Wolfgang Ratzka)
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: 19 Apr 1995 18:58:09 GMT
Organization: University of Regensburg, Germany

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 1995 23:36:44 +0000, steve@chubsoft.demon.co.uk
>>>>> (Steve Anderson) said:

SA> yeah yeah. Any snaps of the Plutonian polar bears?

Yep. Wearing "Archimedes Plutonium" T-Shirts...
--
    _ 
|  | )                     Wolfgang.Ratzka@Physik.Uni-Regensburg.de
|/\| \   G=Wolfgang;S=Ratzka;OU=physik;P=uni-regensburg;A=d400;C=de
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenratzka cudfnWolfgang cudlnRatzka cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re:  Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion timetable
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:07:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1995Apr11.031549.6830@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <199504101239.WAA10213@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Robin van
>Spaandonk, rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au 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.  .. .

>All good points.  Of course, this idea has been proposed
>in the past.  For instance, I proposed something like this
>in May/June of 1994 in an essay for a class, which I posted
>here (but few people read it since it was pretty long.)

>One could easily imagine putting ITER funding in a separate
>budget (it's going to be a huge program and will eat up
>the rest of the fusion budget if it stays where it is), which
>would free up enough funding in the rest of the fusion budget
>to support this sort of alternate-concepts program in the U.S.  
>(Or one could kill ITER, which would also free up funding.)

Good idea Bob, because then the ITER line item could be line item 
vetoed and the rest of the stuff would still be there.  

>My personal fantasy fusion budget would (at the moment)
>look something like this:

>BASE PROGRAM (all dollar figures are approximate; I don't have
>a current budget on hand to compare with):

>$30 M   basic plasma research and theory work

Why can't this be funded at NSF???  What business is this work
being handled by a fusion development program.  A little wasteful? 

>$30 M alternate concepts work

Only problem here relates to your possible restriction against what
you consider to be "non-conventional and therefore non-fundable".  
You could go really conservative and bring back the steam engine.  
Stellarators .. do they count as innovative..  or is that criteria
not being considered as having any significant weight either?   

>$40 M   divertors, incl. testing facility (heat fluxes to first wall
>           will be problematic for any magnetic fusion machine)

There you go again, forgetting about an advanced concept approach
that uses a dense fluid wall.  The more stuff you hump into it the
better it works.  The PLASMAK(tm) concept, or would that not be under 
consideration in your world schema since it is "non-conventional"?  
I missed your reply to my comment to your related FAQ remark as to
"what's a proper (conventional) fusion concept" and "the 
non-conventional ones shouldn't be considered (in the FAQ).  

>$40 M   neutron-resistant materials testing facility
>           (neutron-resistant materials will be important for
>            any first-generation D-T plant, and also good for
>            minimizing radwaste in D-D and D-3He as well)

But this is not neccesary  since it is already under the tokamak program.
If THE Tokamak is cut then the D-^3He could be done, but what AC would
consider using DT?   Hush MAX PPP.. and your stellarator Wendlestein the
16th or whatever.  I was thinking somethings more forward in time and 
concepts.   

>$10 M   new-project design and engineering 
>$10 M   program administration
>* Total = $160 M
>
>TOKAMAK PROGRAM:
>$90 M  flagship project operation and/or construction (TFTR or TPX)
>       (put unused operations $$ into trust fund for future construction)

Flag ship 
FLAG SHIP 
FLAGGING ships is not the concept that fits in today's leaner and meaner
congress.  
I think canoe would have a better  chance.   Any money beyond that should
go back to the future (AC concept with a competitively forward progress).  

>$90 M  variety of smaller experimental tokamaks (DIII-D, Alcator, others)
>$10 M  tokamak reactor studies (looking-ahead work)
>* Total = $190 M

Hey! choose one!  this pig is the fattest hog that has been slopped by
the governemnt.  It's time to winnow the sty.  Two non-growable little 
piglets or one huge huge fat slab of bacon -- but just one, your choice.   
You don't get to stock the ranch with your extravagance anymore.  Those 
days are gone. WELL??? which is it?? ITER or your TPX, the Texas toroid, 
Alcator or Doublet??   Hmmm!  do you dare answer under these terms??  
>=================================================================
>Domestic Fusion Program Total:  $350M  (FY 1995 is about $370 M)

Yum Yum .. now there is a budget worth getting into.  

>Additional Spending:
>U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO INTERNATIONAL TOKAMAK PROGRAM (ITER or successor):
>$50-150 M (but IN SEPARATE BUDGET) including supporting research

>I've probably missed a few things that should go in the Base
>program.  The current budget doesn't have these elements, and I've
>basically pulled numbers out of nowhere.  What do other people
>think?

Yes, the mothballs and paint you will need to keep these toky machines
in museum condition.  Paleo-Fusion will make an interesting exhibit
in the not to distant future.  Maybe Disney world can help you out!
                      .. .         M o u s eeeee
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / I Johnston /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:22:00 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: 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.  

: 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?'

Exactly why I have criticised the poor man. It seems unchritable to
assume that he's as raving an ignorant loony as his posts suggest, and
far kinder to suppose that he is merely a crook. Remember, he's

a) a simple programmer who can tell bullshit when he sees it

b) a businessman ho has invested tens of thousands of dollars in CF. (So
   course he has no financial interest in it)

c) an expert in calorimetry ("If you've done the experiments like I
   have...")
 
d) not an expert in calorimetry ("You don't have to do experiments, just
   trust people...")

e) trusting of people ("Everything F&P has said has been 100% true")

f) untrusting of people ("Everything Close and Droege have said has been
   100% false")

So, there we have it. Crook or crank - you choose. I personally wouldn't
buy a stamp from the man.

Ian


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 /  TR /  Fusion news address ?
     
Originally-From: sp@pobox.oleane.com (TR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion news address ?
Date: 20 Apr 1995 12:24:07 GMT
Organization: Oleane - PIPEX Internatinal

Does anybody know the code or address of some Cold Fusion News ( like 
Fusion Fact ...)

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensp cudlnTR cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / I Johnston /  Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HUFFMAN DEVICE
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:09:13 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br) wrote:

:     > [Gary Steckly:] 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?

: (Sigh.) 

: Again, PLEASE keep my share of those $700 out of this project.
: I do not want to contribute to pseudoscientific boondoggles.
: Thank you.

But remember, Jed assured us all that the Huffman device will not only
produce excess heat but excess shaft work too - once run up to operating
conditions it will heat water and drive its motor (it unscrewed its
rotor). So with Jed's entirely honourable, trustworthy, sane, courteous,
reliable and disinterested word guaranteeing it, it is surely rash to
dismiss it as boondoggle.

Did anyone here buy shares in Clustron Sciences Corporation?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / I Johnston /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:13:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

: Few or none.  It's not like the tokamak fusion empire that it's 
: government-industry machine has "invested" VASTLY LARGER chunks of 
: our citizen's money in a likely worthless scam of commercial tokamak 
: fusion development.  You Brits think your not be suckered??? 

We're normally suckered by paying huge amounts of money for "defence
research project" which produce no results after threefold cost and time
overruns. What we give to Jet etc is trivial in comparison.

: Look at it this way, at least these Jed CF type supporters make the choice
: using their own money.  The rest of us don't.  

I'm sorry, I hadn't realised that Jed was wholly opposed to any state
funding of CF research. I must have misjudged him.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Nick Maclaren /  Re:  Electrolysis as an energy source ??
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Electrolysis as an energy source ??
Date: 20 Apr 1995 13:31:46 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <199504101402.AAA20136@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozem
il.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
|>
|> I haven't run the numbers, but my intuition says, that hydrogen
|> storage would work out cheaper / stored kWh than either storage
|> batteries or magnetic energy storage devices. Pumped hydro may not
|> always be an available option. (i.e. no natural heights locally
|> available, necessitating expensive high tower construction.) Though
|> the overall efficiency of hydrogen storage may not be crash hot,
|> this could probably be more cheaply compensated for by the
|> installation of extra generating capacity, than by paying for
|> expensive though efficient storage media. (And the wind is free, so
|> fuel costs don't come into it.).

See sci.energy.hydrogen, which is all about this topic.

The biggest problem is actually the storage - compressed hydrogen
is rather dangerous stuff in a 20% oxygen atmosphere, and it is
rather bulky uncompressed!  It can be stored in precious metal
sponges, but they cost a bomb, and there aren't enough of the ores
anyway.

One of the aspects of cold fusion that most people seem to miss is
that, even if all the phenomena were due to hydrogen storage, this
doesn't make them uninteresting.  If a nickel (hence cheap) device
could store enough hydrogen to vaporise itself, then it is plenty
efficient enough to run a car.  I may be confusing two reports, but
I think that someone reported exactly this effect.

Please note, I am NOT entering the cold fusion lists - I am merely
saying that some of the reported effects have major commercial
implications, assuming that the reports are true, whether or not
their cause is cold fusion.


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:46 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> Yes, it was a *lightwater* demo and it was apparently producing 300%
-> excess heat without even accounting for electrolysis losses -- which
-> if there was no recombination, would put the excess heat at a much
-> higher level.  The ICCF5 demo was operated by Dennis Cravens, according
-> to Bill Page's report.
 
Do lightwater experiments use pure lightwater, or do they use regular water
which has a small amount of heavy water in it?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / John Logajan /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 20 Apr 1995 15:33:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
: -> Yes, it was a *lightwater* demo and it was apparently producing 300%
: -> excess heat without even accounting for electrolysis losses -- which
:  
: Do lightwater experiments use pure lightwater, or do they use regular water
: which has a small amount of heavy water in it?

The Patterson Power Cell allegedly runs on either heavy water or "regular
water."  I'm not aware of any pure light water runs (can you even buy
the stuff?)  Supposedly it runs better on heavy water.

--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 /  LABEQUIP /  Vibrating Sample and Torque Magnetometer
     
Originally-From: labequip@aol.com (LABEQUIP)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vibrating Sample and Torque Magnetometer
Date: 20 Apr 1995 11:44:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Phillips Technologies is brokering this used DMS Magnetometer I am not
sure  who might be interested or where best to get this information out.
If you are interested please contact Jim @1-800-524-0544 , Fax
405-525-0545 or E-Mail
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlabequip cudlnLABEQUIP cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Trevor Lewis /  Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
     
Originally-From: Trevor Lewis <twlws@mailserv.mta.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
Date: 20 Apr 1995 14:55:38 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick

> In article: <19950417.223035.35@oxshott.demon.co.uk>  simon@oxshott.de
on.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.
> 

Have you ever thought that maybe he just wanted another source of 
information.  Wow! what a cynic you are!!  How about a little friendly
help to a student who is currently trying to learn more.  I thought that 
this newsgroup was for everyone to read and use, not just geniuses - 
like yourself. Your attitude doesn't further anything useful.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentwlws cudfnTrevor cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 /  scott@ora.com
 /  Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
     
Originally-From: scott@ora.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
Date: 20 Apr 1995 17:23:57 GMT
Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.

When charged particles accelerate, they radiate their energy spontaneously
as photons.  My understanding is that this is referred to as "synchrotron
radiation (due to this being a significant affect in synchtrotrons
where particles fly around at relativistic velocities). 

Now, why is it that a plasma in a Tokamak reactor doesn't bleed off all it's 
heat as photons due to being accelerated around a circular path in the 
reactor core?  

Is the actual velocity of the average plasma flow around the core just 
plain low?  Or is it that such radiation due to acceleration in general 
only makes up a small fraction of the kinetic energy of the particle on 
the time scale of how long it typically takes a particle to become part
of a reaction?  

Just curious if this is a significant factor in Tokamaks compared to linear 
reactor designs.  

Thanks,

Scott


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenscott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / John Logajan /  Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
Date: 20 Apr 1995 22:29:49 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


Well, I wasn't going to post this because I'm afraid a lot of other people
will post it too, but since I haven't seen it come by, here it is:



Contrib wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Date    Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:38:44 -0400
Message <199504182331.TAA15702@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca>
Subject Highlights of the ICCF5 Conference

            Highlights of the ICCF5 Conference

In the next few issues I will post several items on the papers that I
liked at the conference. This is going to take some time and right now
I am still recovering from the usual post-conference cold/flu - a pretty
severe one this time - cough! Monte Carlo was interesting but I can tell
you that I wouldn't want to live there. Absolutely too many people (and too
many cars!) in one small place. In any case, this article is intended to
give you a feeling for what the conference was like and an idea of what
stood out in my mind.

There were approximately 200 participants from all around the world, in
spite of the exorbitantly high cost of travel, accommodations and food in
Monte Carlo. The format of the conference was sequential oral presentations
(no parallel sessions) with most papers also given as posters as well as
additional papers which were given only as posters. I think this worked
rather well though it seemed that there was not enough time for the oral
presentations nor enough time set aside to view and discuss all of the
interesting posters. The emphasis on posters, however, seems like it was a
good approach.

There was no doubt that ICCF-5 was a meeting of believers (almost). The
only well known sceptic present was Douglas Morrison. And there were no
presentations that I recall which reported any negative observations.
[As an aside to Steven Jones: Steve, I think your abscence was a
disappointment to many of the longer term "CF" researchers. Several
people asked me why you were not present, if nothing else, then perhaps
because they wondered how you would have reacted to Ed Storms "Why the
sceptics don't believe pigs can fly" slide with which he showed during
his introductory talk.]

Contrary to the expectation following ICCF-4 that ICCF-6 would be held
in China, it was decided by the International Advisory Committee that
ICCF-6 will be held in Japan in October 1996. Oh no, not another place
that is going to be too expensive for those of us dependent on the US
dollar exchange rate...

Since I was also at the ICCF-4 conference in Maui, Hawaii, last year, I
can't help but contrast ICCF-5 with ICCF-4. For one thing, there were no
demonstrations at ICCF-4.

1) A Demonstration!

An apparently 300% (heat output = 3 x total electrical power input, no
"electrolysis" factor) excess heat demonstration was operated by Dennis
Cravens and Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI). The experimental
apparatus, which was completely enclosed in a plastic display case with
panels opening to allow access to the electrolytic cell and measurement
equipment, appeared to be nearly identical to that described in Vol. 1,
No. 1 of "Infinite Energy" (Gene Mallove's new cold fusion magazine which
was distributed quite freely to conference participants). The
demonstration cell used light water (though heavy water has also been
tested) and a cathode consisting of thin Nickel / Palladium / Nickel /
Copper layers on serveral thousand small plastic polymer beads. The beads
are held in close vacinity to a resin ion exchange anode. The electrolyte
is pumped at a constant rate through the cell. Flow calorimetry on the
circulating electrolyte is used to measure the heat evolved during the
electrolysis.

Dennis Cravens gave an oral presentation of the improvements he had made
in the CETI apparatus and the techniques that are used to measure its
performance. CETI encouraged conference participants to make their own
measurements on the operating cell and many people seemed to attempt to
do so as everyone crowded around the display during coffee breaks and
even during the other conference sessions. Since I hadn't brought my
own pocket volt-ohm meter, I didn't see much point <grin>. But I did look
closely enough to verify that the current and voltage measurements were
being taken by the "four point" method, eliminating the concern about
lead resistance which seemed to be a possible flaw in the Notoya
demonstration unit at ICCF-3 in Nagoya, Japan.

2) More about the flu

Notably absent from the main conference proceedings was Stanley Pons. It
was explained that Pons was suffering from a serious flu. (At the time,
I wondered if there were other possible reasons, but now I am a
believer - if I had had this flu before the conference I probably would
not have been there either!). Martin Fleischmann, however, was very much
in evidence during the four days of the conference and gave two oral
presentations as well as a final summary. Unfortunately, all that he said
can be summed up basically as "no news is good news". He did not discuss
any new results, rather he discussed how the existing extensive database
(including those published by Harwell) can be re-examined in terms of
the "positive feedback" effects which they claim to have observed during
all excess heat measurements.

Martin Fleischmann's summary of the conference left me wondering once
again (since I had the same "feeling" at ICCF-4), whether Pons and
Fleischmann might not have some well thought-out overall plan to the
"CF" drama which is unfolding according to a schedule which they still
largely dictate.

3) Loading Palladium with Hydrogen

As at ICCF-4 there was the usual crop of methodology/materials papers on
obtaining high loading ratios - mostly my Japanese researchers. Those
who looked for excess heat at high loadings apparently found it.

4) Loading plus desorption?

An interesting observation by McKubre concerning heat brusts during
deuterium desorption. McKubre obsersves large and frequent
absorption/desorption cycles after achieving loadings of above about
0.83 (which Martin Fleischmann and others also noted corresponds to the
endothermic to exothermic absorption transition) coincident with the
observation of excess heat. These absorption/desorption oscillations were
also noted by another speaker. Peter Hagelstein has a theory that
desorption can be the mechanism which pumps the phonon-laser effects which
are required by his theory in order to account for the lack of radiation
products from fusion.

5) Theories

The theory papers were in general rather poor. No significantly new
theories were presented and there was too much "weird science", in my
opinion. It makes me wonder why Pons and Fleischmann are so welling to
surround themselves by "far-out" theorists. The opening talk was given by
Dr. Juliano Preparata, who seems to think of himself as a sort of "new-age"
physics guru, whose message is being either ignored or suppressed by the
conventional physics community. There were three other talks on theory
which were much more down to earth (by Drs. Li, Kim, and Chubb all of whom
are participants here in this discussion group, so I will let them speak
for themselves).

Peter Hagelstein gave an update on his efforts to develop a theory based
on neutron transfer and phonon laser effects. Like, the Chubb's theory,
which we have been discussing at some length here in this discussion group,
Peter Hagelstein's theory has the merit of having survived (and evolved)
as "CF" research has continued.

This year, J.P. Vigier did not present any further developments of his
"tight Bohr orbits" theory, nor was anyone talking about the Mills
shrunked hydrogen theory, but there were, however, some intriguing
reports of strange results on Nickel cathodes (Srinivasin, DuFour) which
relate rather directly to this line of thinking. I'll deal with these in
a later issue.

There were 31 other theory papers presented as posters, of which mine
was one. Although I did (and still do) very much appreciate the
opportunity to present my paper as a poster at the conference, I am not
at all sure that I liked the company of so many "weird science"
theorists. Of course, I don't view my paper as being in this category,
but perhaps other people did. This seems unfortunate to me.

If I were to make one recommendation for future ICCF meetings, I think
it would be to work out some limited form of peer review (or other
screening mechanism) that would clean-up this part of the conference -
even if that might have meant that I would not have had a chance to
present my paper. I don't see the point of such an "open door" policy
with respect to theory, unless, perhaps it does represent a certain lack
of respect for theory or perhaps it happens to fit in with this unknown
"plan" I mentioned above in 2).

In short, the lack of a credible theory continues to show "CF" in a
negative light, and this in spite of the apparently working 300% excess
demo unit running out in hallway during the theory presentations!

6) Sonofusion?

There was an interesting paper by T. V. Prevenslik rather mysteriously
titled "Biological Effects of Ultrasonic Cavitation" but really a
refutation of the notion that sonoluminescence necessarily implies high
temperatures. Prevenslik points out that the mean free path of gas/water
vapour molecules within a bubble easily exceeds the dimensions of the
bubbles considered by Putterman, et. al. and argues, therefore that the
energy of the collapsing bubble can not be transferred to thermal energy.
Instead, he calculates that the Doppler driven energy shift of infrared
photons reflected within the collapsing cavity provide the luminescence
specturm observed by Putternam, et. al.

I found this paper especially interesting, of course, since it seems in
general agreement with the observations of my own paper. Some of you might
recall that a few months ago some calculations on the possibility of
Doppler shift effects in sonoluminescence were posted to
sci.physics.fusion. I don't have the exact reference handy right now,
so I'll discuss more of the details later. 

During the poster session, I talked to Prenvenslik, who said that he had
experienced a strongly negative response to his attempts to publish his
calculations in the usual scientific journals and that he had choosen to
present the calculations in terms of "biological effects" and even a
working demonstration unit that he claims makes use of this Doppler
amplification of soft ultraviolet light to low x-ray frequencies for the
purposes of sterilizing water in live fish tanks which he explains are
very common in Hong Kong were he works. What else can I say? Its a strange
world.

7) An interesting development

During what was supposed to be a summary talk entitled "Charting the Way
Forward" Tom Passell of EPRI presented Keven Wolf's "un-published"
anomalous characteristic gamma-ray spectrum - apparently without the
author's approval as revealed by a question from Douglas Morrison. Tom
Passell's position was that discussing these results at the conference
did not constitute "publication" - certainly a fine point. But in any
case, in my opinion, the episode of Keven Wolf's mysterious results has
gone on long enough. It is time that someone finally has been willing to
discuss it openly. Still, there apparently has been no replication of
Keven Wolf's result and all that remains is a still somewhat radioactive
Palladium cathode and a mystery. Tom Passell was asked about the
possibility of a hoax, to which he replied that in spite of the
availability of a large particle accelerator near where Wolf was working,
there is no known activation method which would produce that characteristic
spectrum and implied isotope shifts that had been observed.

-------------

There is lots more to write about, but I think its time I went back to
bed for now. My head hurts and my throat feels like sandpaper every time
I cough... oh what sacrifices we "CF" researchers have to endur in the
pursuit of truth - the Monte Carlo cassino and the Folie Russe (cabaret
dance troupe at the Loews Hotel) not withstanding.

Cheers,

Bill Page.


--
 - 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:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / 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: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 17:40:49 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3n5sla$a45@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>  Trevor Lewis <twlws@mailserv.mta.ca> writes:
> Have you ever thought that maybe he just wanted another source of 
> information.

Of course I did. And rejected it, as you would have done had you read
his message carefully. You don't ask for 'just the basic stuff' if you've
already done your basic homework.

-- 
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:
cuddy20 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.20 / Bill Page /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: 20 Apr 1995 19:15:57 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <3n5urc$i09@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>The Patterson Power Cell allegedly runs on either heavy water or "regular
>water."  I'm not aware of any pure light water runs (can you even buy
>the stuff?)  Supposedly it runs better on heavy water.
>
>--
> - 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    -

Yes, apparently Deuterium depleted light water is available through
the same suppliers as heavy water, according to Robert Mahatchek of
Ontario Hydro who gave a presentation at ICCF-5 on the manufacture of
heavy water.  Ontario Hydro has a large stock pile of very low
Deuterium content light water which it also provides to the same
commercial distributors.

But, like, John Logajan, no one I spoke to ICCF-5 was aware of any
"CF" experiments specifically using the Deuterium depleted light
water.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr 21 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
