1995.04.21 / Nathan Jones /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jonesn@orph01.phy.ornl.gov (Nathan Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:21:45 GMT
Organization: Accelerator Based Atomic Physics

In article <3n80nt$ues@seralph9.essex.ac.uk> ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk
(Ieromnimon F) writes:

>Definitely not an appropriate answer. For the second time in a month, and after
>a few other people gave more detailed accounts as to why:

>                Heavy Water Is Toxic

>You don't have to be an expert in the field to be able to read, say, an
>encyclopaidia. It doesn't have to be radioactive to be bad for you...


>Frank Ieromnimon,
>ierof@essex.ac.uk.

Silly me. I rely too heavily on the Material Safety Data Sheets (required 
here in the states for all chemicals in the workplace), I suppose.  My MSDS 
sheets from Sigma-Aldrich (Dec '89, Nov '92, and Feb '95)all indicate a "low 
order of toxicity". But then, somehow I trust them more than an encyclopedia.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nathan Jones                     The opinions expressed here are
Accelerator Atomic Physics       obviously my own, as my employer
Oak Ridge National Laboratory    would have used several megs and
jonesn@orph01.phy.ornl.gov       eight lawyers to express theirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesn cudfnNathan cudlnJones cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Danny White /  Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
     
Originally-From: dbwhite@ingr.com (Danny White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: basics of nuclear fission and fusion
Date: 21 Apr 1995 18:17:35 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Corp.

In article <370181054wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.u
 ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") says:
>
>In article: <3n5sla$a45@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>  Trevor Lewis <twlws@mailse
v.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.
>

Simon:

I also wanted to get a broader understanding of fission
& fusion than offered by conventional texts on the subject,
which seemed too theoretical.

My first recommendation is to read the articles in the
Encyclopedia Brittanica.  If that doesn't satisfy your needs,
then find Issac Asimov's Introduction to Physics, which is
not a textbook, but a layperson's introduction to the
science.  Mr. Asimov, a talented writer, has also the 
ability to make the complex understandable and enjoyable.

Both of these documents can most likely be found at 
your local University library.

Best regards:
Danny White

>-- 
>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:
cuddy21 cudendbwhite cudfnDanny cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Tom Droege /  Certificates are in the Mail
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Certificates are in the Mail
Date: 21 Apr 1995 19:47:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

The Certificates of Participation in the first? news group
field trip are in the mail.  Time to search for an apprpriate
frame.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 /  nancy /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: nancyw@sam.neosoft.com (nancy )
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: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:38:40 UNDEFINED
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 968 5800

In article <3n6hnb$eic@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Nathan
McKnight <bellomy.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>From: Nathan McKnight <bellomy.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>Subject: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
>Date: 20 Apr 1995 20:55:07 GMT

>I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
>BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
>SCIENCE.  
>                        NATHAN McKNIGHT

Never heard of him, but it does seem you have either gone over the edge on 
this or you have fallen into a trap.

Try a couple of aspirin and take a few days off.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennancyw cudlnnancy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Tom Droege /  Thanks for the post, Jed
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks for the post, Jed
Date: 21 Apr 1995 21:39:55 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Thanks to Jed for the nice ICCF5 write up.  But it is so long that
the reply feature of my mail reader won't let me edit and comment
on parts of it.  I just get a blank page.  Nice trick Jed to side
track my criticism!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 17:53:48 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>So, there we have it. Crook or crank - you choose. I personally wouldn't
>buy a stamp from the man.
 
I would not think of selling you one either, for that matte.Listen up,
bozo: your opinion of me is not an issue here. You are free to publish
as many rude statements about my intellect and capacity as you like. Rail
on all you like, I find your comments perfectly hilarious. However, let
me remind you (and other readers) that the reason I started this thread
was not because you insulted me or anything silly like that. I started this
thread because you posted lies about my actions. You claimed that I own
a joint stock company engaged in cold fusion R&D and you claimed that I
am selling shares in it, and you strongly hinted that I am doing that in
violation of SEC laws. That kind of talk, my fine feathered friend, can
get you into a hell of a lot of trouble,
So I suggest you cut out that shit before someone sues you and your
university. "Flame wars" are perfectly alright with me and with every law
enforcement agency in the world.ou are free to express opinions and trade
insults with anyone you like. In every free country that is covered under
freedom of speech laws -- thank goodness. But what you did has nothing to
do with freedom of speech. What you did was to dream up some damaging
imaginary facts about me, and you posted them where millions of people could
find them. You have not got even one tiny scrap of written proof to support
*any* of the accusations, and you are accusing me of criminal violations of
federal laws. That is an amazingly stupid thing for you to do. If you were
not such a certified idiot, I would be upset by it, but I can tell by your
tone that you do not even realize how serious it is, and you have great
difficulty distiguishing the difference between your own fanasies (stuff you
dream up about me) and reality. So I am not going to bother taking you
seriously. Other readers might want to know what you are
up to, though.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I need info on heavy water
Date: 22 Apr 1995 00:56:37 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210



Hmm... Just wondering why I never see:

HDO
HTO
DTO
T2O

in reference to "heavy water".



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / David Bos /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: David Bos <davidb@luna.nl>
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: 22 Apr 1995 02:18:48 GMT
Organization: Luna Internet Services

kennedy@quark.phys.ufl.edu (Dallas Kennedy) wrote: 
>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 
 
 
Is this saying the same as space being able to expand faster than the speed of   
light? (Read that somewhere, was by someone of authority). 
 
 


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendavidb cudfnDavid cudlnBos cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / C Douthwaite /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
     
Originally-From: Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Date: 22 Apr 1995 05:13:18 GMT
Organization: Southern InterNet Services

Russ Allbery (rra@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

> You present no arguments to address, just irrational hysteria.  
> Rationales have been presented many times before, including a 
> desire to put groups at the same level rather than making the 
> .misc group (without the .misc extension) the *first* group a 
> reader finds (since it's generally preferred postings be made to 
> groups other than misc if they are appropriate), ease of wildcard 
> expressions for hierarchies in the news control files, and 
> problems with some news presentation mechanisms which would cause 
> articles and newsgroups to be shown at the same level if the misc 
> group isn't renamed to misc.  


Well, I have to admit you've certainly got _me_ floored with that 
exposition of newsgroup renaming rationales !  

It has cured my irrationale hysteria, that's for sure, I seem to 
have developed a bit of a headache though  :-)


Bye,
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenColin_Douthwaite cudfnColin cudlnDouthwaite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion on the "Idea Futures" Market...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion on the "Idea Futures" Market...
Date: 21 Apr 1995 22:48:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Some of you already know about this, but many do not, so I
thought I'd write up a little blurb.  There is a Web site
(URL is http://skyler.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml)
known as the Idea Futures Market, where different claims
about the future, many of a scientific/technical nature,
are put in a "market."  You can buy or sell coupons (using
imaginary money) based upon whether you think the claim
is likely to prove true (value of 1) or false (value of 0) in
the future.  The neat thing about the market is that in some 
sense it measures the consensus view on the credibility of 
the propositions involved.  If players think a claim is 
"overvalued", and they become skeptical that it will prove 
true, then they will trade it at a lower price. For instance, 
one of the claims is that OJ Simpson will be found guilty; 
this is currently trading at 0.4 or so, which presumably 
means he's considered 40% likely to be found guilty.  (The 
related claim that there will be a mistrial is trading at 
about 0.6, or 60%).  

Two of the claims on the Idea Futures Market are directly
related to topics on this newsgroup.  One of the Claims is
whether Pons-Fleischmann style Deuterium-in-Palladium
cold fusion can produce over 10 watts/cc net power; the 
other is that there will be a power plant selling fusion 
energy regularly (over 50% of the time, for at least a year)
by the end of 2045.  

Cold Fusion was trading at around 0.19 or 0.20 a couple weeks
ago, and I purchased some shares, thinking that the price
would go up due to interesting results presented in Monaco.
But right now the price has fallen to 0.15-0.17 or so, indicating
an increase in skepticism about CF.  Guess there wasn't anything 
really interesting?  (For those who care, the fusion power plant 
claim is currently trading at about 0.75.)

In case you're interested, and you missed it above, the Web URL
for the Idea Futures Market is:

http://skyler.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml

--Bob Heeter

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
Date: 22 Apr 1995 16:31:37 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <3mvkag$pdn@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:

> 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.

A worthy goal to make available on the net the answers to basic
questions that were difficult or impossible to coax from Mr. Koloc
himself. Whether a concept is good or bad, science and society are
best served by information which is easily available. In this spirit,
are you interested in adding my critique of the plasmak, or is your
www entry only intended for plasmak TB's?

> 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.

I don't know. I think Mr. Koloc has made a few errors, too.

-- Art Carlson --

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

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bill Page's Highlights of ICCF5 report
Date: 22 Apr 1995 12:25:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I don't understand the Prevenslik paper either.  I gather that the wall
must be collapsing at relativistic speed in order to produce a Doppler
shift of this magnitude.   Can anyone else help?

Best regards.
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 /  dchatterjee@ku /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
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: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 22 Apr 95 11:26:58 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <3n87kj$jcp@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, "N.McKnight" 
><postbox@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn) wrote:
>>
>> In article <3n6hnb$eic@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> Nathan McKnight  
>> :I WISH THIS GUY WOULD STAY IN THE CRACKPOT NEWSGROUPS WHERE HE 
>> :BELONGS AND STOP WASTING THE TIME OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REAL
>> :SCIENCE.  
>> So is your irony meter completely busted?  Do you not see that
>> by posting a pointless rant such as this you are behaving in
>> *exactly* the manner that you're complaining about?
>> 
>> -Ted
> 
> I'm just sick of trying read about real science and having to scroll
> for an hour through one of his threads.  Arguing about wheather 
> all of physics is a great big hoax is not in the interest of the
> scientific community, and don't belong on newsgroups dedicated to 
> science.  The fact that we have such newsgroups as sci.physics, 
> demonstrates that we already accept that physics is not a farce,
> so why argue the point endlessly?  Am I the only one who feels this
> way?  
> Besides, my rants are not so long and this is my last on this subject.
> I'd like to hear those words from Mr. Wallace. 
>                                         Nathan


  I think Nathan-bashers are doing their job pretty well. Wallace is just
  another person whose claim to fame appears to be suppossedly by pressing
  the fool's button. Endless triade and mindless prattle are a foray for some
  Wallace, Ludwig/ Archimedes Plutonium etc.

  It is true that Ted and Nancy are upholding the Constitution (the wonderful
  1st Amendment) by telling us that it's abuse is also worthwhile even to the
  point of being trite and morbid.  

  If Dr.Wallace wants to publish a paper on his electronic bullshit, I think
  Ted and Nancy should be two out three reviewers for that paper.

  Why not moderate this group ?

   - Deb Chatterjee

    Graduate Research Assistant
    RSL, EECS Department,
    University of Kansas

   P.S.: Ted and Nancy,  chill out ! If Wallace and his cohorts have the
         right to waste the bandwidth, Nathan and myself have the right to
         protest.  I think you must allow that for fairplay.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendchatterjee cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
Date: 22 Apr 1995 18:15:25 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arthur      Carlson        TOK (awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: are you interested in adding my critique of the plasmak, or is your
: www entry only intended for plasmak TB's?

I'm not sure I appreciate the the reference to TB (true believer) since
nothing in my web page or postings to date on the PLASMAK(tm) indicate
anything more than an attempt to explain in lay terms what Dr. Koloc
has theorized and observed.  I must say, however, that 1/4 second
lived 4kJ input-energy ball lightnings created using Koloc's helical
genesis current is very convincing -- especially in regards to the
understanding of ball lightning.  The next step, compression heated
fusion, remains to be demonstrated.

As "editor" of my own web page, I welcome your critique and will certainly
publish it there.  Should Dr. Koloc care to respond or any series of
exchanges -- I reserve the "editorial" right to condense the exchange
into point/counter-point style and my estimation of lay terminology.

Otherwise, if that is not acceptable, get yer own web 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:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / John Logajan /  Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
Date: 22 Apr 1995 18:39:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
:  
: Patterson's company, Clean Energy Technology (CETI), got together with Dennis
: Cravens and brought to the conference a demonstration cell in a flow
: calorimeter. It worked spectacularly well. Cravens [2] discussed it on the
: first day. The device output 3 to 5 times input energy, ignoring energy lost
: to electrolysis gases, and as much as 10 times input if you include various
: factors like electrolysis gases and the heat lost from the cell container.

The calorimetry is quite simple and quite convincing.  But there is one
remaining nagging question which I haven't seen addressed yet.

Is the Patterson Power Cell anomalous heat nothing more than chemistry?

Recall that there is a reservoir of lithium sulfate/water solution.
Furthermore, the cell contains Ni and Pd among other materials.

My CRC Chemistry Handbook suggests that Ni sulfate hydrates release
energy beyond the energy of formation of the lithium sulfate hydrates.

Other reactions might also be possible.

Therefore we need to be sure that either there is no significant
chemical ash, or that the aggregate energy released exceeds possible
chemical energy limits.

I haven't seen anything published in these forums addressing that
question yet.  Anyone have any info on it?

--
 - 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:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / Wallace BG /  The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallacebg@aol.com (Wallace BG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Farce of Physics
Date: 22 Apr 1995 16:35:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

See sci.physics for all my comments.

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwallacebg cudfnWallace cudlnBG cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.22 / Emory Bunn /  Re: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn)
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: WALLACE IS ANNOYING!!!
Date: 22 Apr 1995 22:49:38 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

In article <1995Apr22.112658.91217@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
 <dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
>   P.S.: Ted and Nancy,  chill out ! If Wallace and his cohorts have the
>         right to waste the bandwidth, Nathan and myself have the right to
>         protest.  I think you must allow that for fairplay.

In no way did I try to deny either of you that right.

-Ted
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.23 / William Rowe /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 01:21:05 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <xK3-ZY9.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[skip]

> Yet, for all the good "vibes," I felt an undercurrent of pessimism and a sense
> that something is wrong with this field. McKubre voiced consternation that the
> field lingers on in a kind of twilight zone in the U.S. I think I know why.

Perhaps the lack of a single high quality experiment? There are so many varied
experiments it seems unlikely they are all demonstrations of the same effect.

> The political opposition is the main problem of course, but the other problem
> is that the focus of the research is wrong. There is too much emphasis on
> theory and basic science, and not enough on technology. Many of the inventors,
> businessmen and entrepreneurs at the conference agreed with me about this. An

[skip]

> that short wave radio works much better. The Wrights invented the airplane,
> and 15 years later a theory to explain wing lift emerged. Bell Labs developed

Wing lift is a result of the Bernoulli principle. This principle is named
for Daniel Bernoulli who is credited with first establishing reduced
pressure as
a result of fluid flow. These priciples were published in 1738 by
Bernoulli in  his Hydrodynamica. I find it difficult to believe the Wright
brothers were not
aware of physics published more than 50 years prior to there first flight.

> a transistor in 1948 based on a faulty, incomplete theory. Four years later
> they developed a much better theory, and years after that people began making
> computers with transistors. Innovation comes first, theory and refinements

This is fundamentally different. This is the model most would agree with. First,
a theory perhaps flawed. Then development of devices. Then theory is refined
based on device developement experience.

> follow. The devices from Patterson, E-Quest, Griggs, and Potapov prove that I
> am right about this. An effective demonstration system *can* be built now,
> even before a theory emerges.
>

An effective demonstration of what? Excess energy? Fusion? ZPE?. This is the
problem. Without a theory, i.e. a basic understanding of how it works, the
probability of scaling the device to commercial power production seems
extremely remote.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 01:53:26 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3mqbj3$oe6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mharmer@aol.com (MHarmer) writes:
>>>You have a problem here.  Your use of the word conventional seems to
>>>be capricious, since muon-catalyzed fusion is obviously not a 
>>>straight form of fusion, although it has been looked into at PPPL
>>>(Kulsrud) and suggested by our own S. Jones.  
 
>Muon catalized fusion is considered convensional fusion. It isn't any
>different except that it requires a muon source and lower tempretures.
           ^^^^^^     
You have that right.  

>As for cold fusion, I support any reasearch there may be in it, but don't
>ride on the mumblings of psudo research.  

What did I say that makes you say this??  .. . give me a quote or some clue? 

>If it works, publish. If it doesn't, don't give up. 

When works commercially, we shall go public or raise the private capital 
to build devices for various applications.   Publish?   School's out for 
now but maybe after the thing works as a commercial device then the 
Universities can study the physics.  

>But don't slam other sources of fusion just
>because you like cold fusion.

I would like to see something like cold fusion (small clean low power
density but compact energy generation work.  Who wouldn't??  I don't 
slam other sources of fusion.  As for potential sources??  Well, don't 
you think the level of commercial fusion potential is in the eye of 
the beholder.  Of course, a bit of engineering physics does help to 
improve the "other potential sources", .. . at least that's the tack 
I took when I invented the Spheromak and PLASMAK(TM) concepts.  So why 
would I want to stick with the largely unimproved version?  

As I say, would you build today's pc utilizing vacuum tube technology?  

>Your responce also called convensional fusion dirty.  Pressent Fusion
>research uses tritum, and can be called dirty,  but future fusion project
>will edventually use 'clean' fuels.  But first we have to understand whats
>happening in there.

Whoa! I didn't call conventional fusion dirty, I called the proposed form
of comventional fusion called the tokamak dirty.  And I wash't speaking
environmentally, but rather of the plasma fuel purity during operation. 
The tokamak is simply a continous plasma impurity source for the plasma
fuel during its operation.  Now since you mentioned it, yes! the tokamak
is environmentally negative.  Clean fuels require vastly larger 
temperatures   AND therefore pressures, which the tokamak can't produce
due to inherent design flaws.  (inverse pressure leverage)  

>Also, research continues on other reactor designs, but none of them have
>been as promising as the tokomak.  Are you anti-russan or something.

Since they haven't taken on a new concept since the Spheromak (circa 1973-7)
I should say that your conclusion that the tok is number one isn't worth 
much.  Also, I don't really think they did much to follow through with
Spheromak, and certainly didn't encourge independent innovation.  As
I noticed, it was screwed down to "slow startup" so that it would be
more like tokamak, and something might be seen which could be helpful
to the flagging ship.   

As far as innovative research currently underway on other fusion designs???  
Nonsense.  The DoE would like Congress to think they are continuing on other
mag fusion designs... and they do seem to be responding to pressure from 
their Dame Director of Energy to actually do same.  This may have been 
helped by R. Roy's work.. I don't know.  Probably the threat of a 
leaner and meaner congress is more the reason they may be paying attention 
this time around.  

>Otherwise, thanks for the alt. info.

My pleasure.  

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 23 Apr 1995 04:35:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 23 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
