1995.04.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions from a Newbie
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 23:49:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

To get a sense of where the field is today, I suggest you read my
report on the Highlights of the Fifth International Conference, under
the thread of that title. You will find that Taubes was wrong, the field
did not die after all. Read the book a little more carefully next time, and
compare it to the peer reviewed published papers describing the same
experiments Taubes attempts to describe. You will see that in every case,
he made gross errors. Since his book has no footnotes and since none of
the CF scientists I know actually talked to him, I have to conclude that
he wrote an entire book about a field of science without actually reading
any scientific papers or observing experiments. This is, shall we say, an
extraordinary and unusual method. It is like going to review a symphony
orchestra with your ears plugged up and a towel around your head so that
you cannot hear or see anything. The result is a highly imaginative work
of fiction, but it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual scientific
work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Impact fusion
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Impact fusion
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 10:04:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Yesterday I wrote:

>Well, I found an old envelope with a clean back and did some doodling. The
>kinetic energy of a chunk of, say, metal of mass m flying with velocity v
>(m/s) is 0.5mv^2 total Joules. Convert that to J/mol by dividing by the no.
>of moles in the chunk, m/M, where M is the atomic weight of the metal, then
>divide by N, the Avogadro (for Germans, Loschmidt) number, and finally
> multiply by 6.24*10^18 to convert to eV/atom, you get the formula
>E = 0.5 * 10^-5 * M * v^2  eV/atom>>>

So far, so good; but then, as Paul Dietz kindly pointed out, I went astray by
three orders of magnitude:

>OK, now plug in 10 km/s = 10^4 m/s, and let's assume an iron projectile (M=56)
>and we get about 30 keV/atom, quite respectable. You expect to be able to see
>some fusion at 1 keV or more, so this might do it, if shot at a deuterated
>target such as LiD, used by the Russians. How about the Russians, with their
>pellets flying "slowly" at 200 m/s? I get about 12 eV/atom, not enough, unless
>you invoke some hitherto unknown bla bla.

Here I goofed with the value of M, by not sticking to SI units; M is, of course
0.056 kg/mol, not "56 g". Shame, shame. When I put in the correct value, I get,
for that projectile going at the phenomenal velocity of 10 km/s, an energy of
"only" 30 eV/at, not quite as respectable as the 30 keV I got before. You don't
expect any fusion from that, and certainly not from the super-slow-moving
Russian pellets going at 200 m/s, whose energy now comes to only 0.012 eV/atom.

Sorry, folks, this is not a feasible way to produce fusion.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: E-quest claims challenged
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-quest claims challenged
Date: 25 Apr 1995 11:37:22 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <1995Apr24.110616.2193@plasma.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:

>I asked this of Russ George (not at Ph.D. scientist, incidentally), and he
>replied that the helium concentration in the lab during the experiments
>was *not* measured.  I gather that they have not measured the helium levels in
>the lab *at all*. 

I think you mean "not a rocket scientist", as in "it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see that he has failed to do the obvious important experiment."

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Daniel Russo /  questions on nuclear energy-help?
     
Originally-From: bhslrc@mcs.com (Daniel Russo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: questions on nuclear energy-help?
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:04:31 -0600
Organization: Batavia High School

Questions for an Nuclear energy expert
We are writing a paper concerning nuclear power for our computer class.  We
would like to include an experts opinion.  We would really appreciate it if
you could answer these 10 questions.  Our return E-mail address is
Jnies@fnalv.fnal.gov   and please put our names, Jennie and Joy, in the
subject line. Or send a message back here, with our names in the subject
again, and we'll get it.  Please try to send it by Thursday.  Thanks.  


1)  Why are there so many problems in nuclear power plants?  What usually
causes them?









2)  Does radiation normally escape the core of the nuclear reactor?


3)  If so, how much in REMs, and if not, why?






4)  What radiation is the most harmful and where does it come from?






5)  After how much radiation exposure are there harmful side effects?





6)  Is chemotherapy a form of nuclear radiation or another form?






7)  What are the pros and cons of using fusion in nuclear power plants?







8)  What are the pros and cons of using fission in nuclear powers plants?






9)  Is there such a thing as cold fusion and in what way is it better than
other types?  Do you think we will ever accomplish this?






10)  If we discontinued the use of nuclear power what would be the most
efficient alternative?



11)  If you have any additional comments please note them here.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbhslrc cudfnDaniel cudlnRusso cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Willy Moss /  Re: Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 25 Apr 1995 15:06:43 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu (Paul A. Poydence) wrote:
>I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions,
>and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material.
>What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so. 

Glasstone, "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" is a classic text for most 
information on nuclear weapons and effects. Section 1.44 states that 
"U233, U235, and Pu239 are the only 3 known substances which are 
reasonably stable so that they can be stored without appreciable decay, 
that are capable of undergoing fission by neutrons of all energies. 
Hence, they are the only materials that can be used to sustain a fission 
chain."


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  Kennel /  Re: A question
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 25 Apr 1995 17:53:25 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
> {what if there were free energy}.

> I'd speculate that first, you would have no energy companys as such.
> However, the tremedious resulting glut of energy would have profound
> secondary ramifications (severe global warming, etc.) so that society
> would be forced to put mandatory controls on energy availability and
> carefully licence/control devices that could accomplish what you are
> describing.  

> Waste energy disposal would become an international
> priority, and if you believe energy creation is difficult, you 
> should consider the problem of getting the resulting heat!

No, I don't believe so.

Unless the heat generated by human activities is a substantial fraction
of the total solar energy being deposited on the Earth, it won't
make much difference.

The total solar flux is really *big*.

Global warming is a problem if the physics and chemistry change the 
equilibrium *temperature* at which radiated heat equals the heat coming
in plus heat generated internally. 

Using free energy without changing this equilibrium would not have
super-harmful effects until you start to come close to the Sun's output
striking the earth.


>                                    Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  Kennel /  Re: Impact fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impact fusion
Date: 25 Apr 1995 17:59:34 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
> OK, now plug in 10 km/s = 10^4 m/s, and let's assume an iron projectile (M=56)
> and we get about 30 keV/atom, quite respectable. You expect to be able to see
> some fusion at 1 keV or more, so this might do it, if shot at a deuterated
> target such as LiD, used by the Russians. How about the Russians, with their
> pellets flying "slowly" at 200 m/s? I get about 12 eV/atom, not enough, unless
> you invoke some hitherto unknown bla bla.

You have to believe that somehow in the collision process you "randomize"
energies such that some particles get some extra high velocities sufficient
to fuse, whereas most particles get a lower velocity (to keep the 2nd law).

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Jeff Suzuki /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki)
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: 25 Apr 1995 18:05:11 GMT
Organization: Boston University

Dick King (king@ukulele.reasoning.com) wrote:

: 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.

In which case I hope she comes up with a good explanation why Mars'
protium/deuterium ratio is so much different from Earth's.  

Jeffs
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjeffs cudfnJeff cudlnSuzuki cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 24 Apr 1995 18:26:39 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: 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

Much invective deleted.

:  
: - Jed

For gawd's sake will you and any others please direct this stuff to each
other via email or some other private means.  I cannot imagine why you
think the world is interested.  NO-ONE ELSE GIVES A DAMM. 

Laurie Forbes
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  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: Tue, 25 Apr 95 15:38:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Hm, yes. So you categorically state that you have no financial interest
>in cold fusion? The 50,000 dollars you invested was solely in the public
 
No, asshole. I do not catagorically deny any such thing. I have invested
plenty, and I expect to make out like a bandit. What I deny is *your*
fantasy allegations that I am engaged in criminal fraud and that I have
organized a joint-stock corporation. I have no such corporation. YOU have
no information showing that I have organized such a corporation, and you
have no proof of this allegation of yours that I plan to sell stock in this
pretend corporation. You are making up a bunch of lies about me and publishing
them on e-mail. That's the issue, okay? Nobody cares about my investments
or my activity (except me), and these things are none of anyone's business.
The only issue here is what *you* are doing; not me. You are publishing
lies about me, so I suggest you stop.
 
>PS And Jed, before you go screaming to your lawyer, have another look at
>what you have in the past posted about Frank Close, Steve Jones, Tom
>Droege ...
 
I have no intention of paying any lawyers any money on account of you. Nobody
takes you seriously. I do think it is a good idea for me to point out that
you are lying, but that's enough. Anyone who bothers to look up corporations
in Georgia will see that the CFRA is not listed as one, so anyone can see
that your a damn liar. I don't a lawyer to back that up. As for what I posted
about Close, Jones, Droege and the others, that was all true. Furthermore,
they don't deny it -- they brag about it! They are quite pleased to admit
that they think theory overrules facts. Droege posted a whole report
describing how he visited an experiment and looked for notebooks instead of
looking at the machine. They are not ashamed of their point of view any more
than I am ashamed of mine. I am doing CF for money. I intend to make a pot
of money from it. Academic idiots are often scandalized when they hear me
say that. You, for example, are trying to make it into some kind of public
issue; as if there was something underhanded or disreputable about making
money. From my point of view, making money, taking risks, and funding
controversial experiments is right, proper and socially benefial behavior.
You find it shocking -- I brag about it. It depends on your point of view
I guess. The fact is, though:
 
You accuse me of investing in CF, which I don't consider bad, or a secret,
or any of your business. It is a matter of fact.
 
I accuse Close et al. of believing the textbooks instead of the experiments.
They gleefully admit that is true, at every opportunity.
 
There is really no conflict here. Both sides agreed to disagree long ago.
I do capitalist inventing and risk taking, they do academic physics. They
don't bother me and I don't bother them. *You* are the only one who is
stirring up the pot and making an ass of himself by posting lies about either
side.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Thanks for the post, Jed
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed
Date: 25 Apr 1995 19:55:32 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3n98nb$jbu@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> Thanks to Jed for the nice ICCF5 write up. 
> Tom Droege

Yes, it was a nice summary---so, now, Tom, are you
going to set up a Patterson style cells? That would
seem to be the quick and easy route to a robust experiment.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:23:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I said that the Patterson cell has been run for weeks at high power, exceeding
the limits of chemistry. jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
     "That's what I need to know -- I hadn't seen any run times specified or
     any total energy claims, just power-in/power-out computations.  Of
     course, I'd still like to see the actual numbers. :-)"
 
I have no actual numbers except this one: a couple of weeks. I asked Patterson
and Cravens what is the longest they have ever run uninterrupted. They thought
for a second and said "a couple of weeks." A chemical reaction would only last
a few hours.
 
 
     "With 10W+ anomalous heat out, one is producing 36kJ+ per hour and
     864kJ+ per day.  It wouldn't take a long time to exceed possible
     chemistry at this rate . . .
 
Oh, I don't think they get 10+ watts. Maybe they did, because they have built
a variety of cells, big and small. What they told me about is 0.15 W input
(taking into account electrolysis) and 1 or 2 watts output, occasionally as
much as 5 watts as I recall.
 
 
     "but ... I gotta see the real numbers."
 
Why? What difference does it make? Two days, two weeks or two years would
all amount to the same thing: heat beyond chemistry. Also, like I said, there
is no ash or any other sign of chemical change. I don't see any reason for
more numbers than that but if you crave numbers, you should contact CETI.
 
I don't know how much electrolyte they have but with the IV pump driven setup
they used previously I recall it was less than 100 ml. The amount of metal
on the beads is 10 or 20 mg, or roughly 0.001 mole. Not much!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  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: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:28:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I have to say that overall, your messages really take the cake. Lots of people
have attacked me over the years. Countless people. But you are the most inept,
most hilarious attacker of all. I want to encourage you! Keep posting this
imaginary crap of yours. It is not a threat and not really anything to
call the lawyer about (since any person with a half a brain can verify
that you are lying).
 
You bring a note of humor to humdrum mornings. If you ever find the academic
racket too much to handle you should get into the stand up comedy business.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 20:03:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr18163829@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <D6wt3L.Jpq@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> In article <AWC.95Apr6142707@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson       
TOK  ) writes:
>> >In article <D6JJyA.B3E@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>> What is the duty cycle now, without fusion burn, say so that the machine
>> will maintain super "H" mode operation?

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

But from an engineering point of view, how valid is this.  I so believe
operation for order of a year will be necessary before they can be
put on line.  

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

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

Well for example, there is a large torque on placed on the toroidal
field coils, and although stress is relieved through cross members,
the constant loading and unloading will take its toll.  Remember the
chaps that were on the aloha flight to Australia from Hawaii??  One
minute they were comfortably enclosed in a sleek airship, and the next
they were zipping along in a convertible with its top down ... way
down.  Now the mag energy stored in an ITER device's toroidal field 
could reach giga joules??  higher?? Or did I slip a few decimal places.  

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

I'm certain of that, but the difficulty with leaky tritium, is that
it can easily be "detected", that is cause a "click" for someone 
counting "geigers" ;-), and that person could be any semi-educated 
greeny with access to a press.   With some people, no level is 
"acceptable".  So good luck on that problem.   

>> Have you really considered alternatives and let in competition.

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

No doubt, but do you think that layers of management over the lab
teams that are politically aware cya bureaucrats, don't realize an 
additional perceived risk here??  Most of these chaps don't like
to sweat.  

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

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

You are correct on this.  It was a long time back that HP Furth discussed
it, and it was fairly soon after the ATC work was done at PPPL.  I
checked with Rich J. Hawryluk of PPPL to quote: 

      "On TFTR we have used neutral beam injection up to 40 MW and 
      ICRF up to 11 MW (somewhat less in the DT experiments). We have 
      not done compression experiments and ohmic heating is negligible 
      during the high power beam heating phase but can contribute up 
      to 2 MW in that startup phase prior to injection. 
      I hope this is helpful. "

      Rich
      ____________________________________________________________________
      >R. J. Hawryluk
      >609-243-3306
      >e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov
      >PPPL - LOB 325
      >Phone:  (609) 243-3306
      >Fax:    (609) 243-3248

>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Tom Droege /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: 25 Apr 1995 22:07:09 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <hs48BRv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>I said that the Patterson cell has been run for weeks at high power, exceeding
>the limits of chemistry. jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:

(stuff deleted)

>     "but ... I gotta see the real numbers."
> 
>Why? What difference does it make? Two days, two weeks or two years would
>all amount to the same thing: heat beyond chemistry. Also, like I said, there
>is no ash or any other sign of chemical change. I don't see any reason for
>more numbers than that but if you crave numbers, you should contact CETI.
> 
>I don't know how much electrolyte they have but with the IV pump driven setup
>they used previously I recall it was less than 100 ml. The amount of metal
>on the beads is 10 or 20 mg, or roughly 0.001 mole. Not much!
> 
>- Jed

John, why in the world would you want to see real numbers?  Or how the experiment
is set up, or error limits, or ...   Jed says it is beyond chemistry.  That is 
all you need to know.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / TONY ROSS /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: tony.ross@undiscovered.com (TONY ROSS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 15:44:00 -500
Organization: The Undiscovered Country - Ontario, Canada (519)258-7651

Hello ..
        I am a Grade 13 student from Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada. (Near
Detroit, Michigan, US) I am currently researching for an independant
study on Cold Fusion. I was wondering if anyone might be able to provide
me with thoughts, or possibly experimental procedures or data, re: cold
fusion. Any and all help will be much appreciated.
                                        Thanks,
                                                Jeff W. Reaume
                                        tony.ross@undiscovered.com
************************************************************************
"Do not worry about your troubles in mathematics, I can assure you that
mine are still greater !"
                                                        A. Einstein
************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenross cudfnTONY cudlnROSS cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Barry Merriman /  Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
Date: 25 Apr 1995 23:33:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


According to ICCF5 (via Jed), the easy path to CF is in these
light-water & Pd coated bead systems, and ultrasonic cavitation
devices. These devices seem mechanically and chemically simple, 
generate excess heat on demand, and perform robustly. So, are 
any researchers within eye-shot of this note planning to do any 
_scientific_ research on these devices in the near future? (Jed
has made it clear he is only interested in the commercialization).
And are any of these devices being made available to neutral/skeptical
parties for further analysis?

I mean, really, if the Patterson cell quickly, consistently, robustly 
and reproducibly produces ~1000% excess heat, and several actual 
watts of excess power, it should be fairly trivial to diagnose
what is really going on in it. This should attract the attention of
Steve Jones, Tome Droege, and others who have struggled with the much
more complex electrochemical systems.




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


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: 25 Apr 1995 23:54:57 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

: jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
: >     "but ... I gotta see the real numbers."
: > 
: >Why? What difference does it make? Two days, two weeks or two years would
: >all amount to the same thing: heat beyond chemistry. Also, like I said, there
: >is no ash or any other sign of chemical change.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: John, why in the world would you want to see real numbers?  Or how the
: experiment is set up, or error limits, or ...   Jed says it is beyond
: chemistry.  That is all you need to know.  


Well this is a bit of a philosophical issue.  When Tom Droege tells me
he observed such and such a thermal output at such and such an input
voltage and current product -- I tend to accept that Tom is making a
good faith presentation of his observations -- though I always hold in
reserve the possibility that Tom made some unintentional mistake.

Similarly, when Jed Rothwell or Dennis Cravens tells me that they have
run a Patterson Power Cell for weeks -- I also tend to accept their
representations as in good faith -- and again reserve the possibility
of an unintended mistake.

Now every purported fact or measurement becomes a consistency check on
all other related facts and measurements, so the more specific data
I can get, the smaller and more remote I can shrink, in my own mind,
the potential for unintended error.

In this particular case, the PPC is sufficiently (should I say amazingly)
reproducible and powerful (beyond raw I*V) that it is a particularly worthy
candidate for scrutiny.  In fact, the PPC could be the "Rosetta Stone"
of the CF debate.  I'd like to turn "could be" into "is" at the
earliest possible date -- if that is possible.

--
 - 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:
cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /   /  University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics
     
Originally-From: deddings1@aol.com (DEddings1)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics
Date: 25 Apr 1995 18:50:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Is anybody around familiar with what is happening here?  A little basic
info please.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendeddings1 cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:25:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <hs48BRv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>     "but ... I gotta see the real numbers."

>Why? What difference does it make? Two days, two weeks or two years would
>all amount to the same thing: heat beyond chemistry. Also, like I said, there
>is no ash or any other sign of chemical change. I don't see any reason for
>more numbers than that but if you crave numbers, you should contact CETI.

Jed, I think this is the reason that there is so much decension on this
conference. IF you cannot understand why the numerical evidence of the
experiment is important you cannot grasp scientific method. If you cannot
do that how could you possibly be any judge of what is real and what isn't?

BTW, this is a statement not a flame.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 22:22:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu (Steve Jones) suggests that the E-Quest helium might
have come from atmospheric contamination:
 
     "So what is all this talk of helium level in the E-quest experiments
     being much greater than the *atmospheric* concentration?  Rather, one
     must ask: what was the helium concentration in the lab *during the
     experiments*? . . . I asked this of Russ George . . . and he replied
     that the helium concentration in the lab during the experiments was
     *not* measured.  I gather that they have not measured the helium levels
     in the lab *at all*."
 
That scenario is impossible for a number of reasons, chiefly:
 
1. The helium only appears when there is excess heat, and it is proportional
to the excess. There is no mechanism that would allow selective leaking in of
helium depending on how much excess heat the cell generates.
 
2. The experimental protocals are designed to flush out and eliminate
contamination, and the stainless steel collection vessels will not leak helium
in or out for years. In fact the cylinders of gas from these very experiments
are still containing the bulk of the samples, after having been re-tested on
regular intervals following the sampling.
 
3. In experiments with no heat, helium levels are below atmospheric
concentration, proving there cannot be any significant leak.
 
4. The Los Alamos labs where these experiments were performed are in an area
where tritium is sometimes handled, so the air from each laboratory room is
flushed at a very high exchange rate through gigantic ceiling fans sucking the
air from the rooms past Tritium detection arrays and out of the building.
Helium and other contaminents are quickly flushed out from each room. Helium
contamination would have to be enormous to provide the observed levels.
 
5. The helium isotopic ratios are far different from ordinary terrestrial
ratios. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where someone in the lab is
venting enough helium-3 into the air to make the 3He:4He ratio change by a
factor of over 1000. The 22Ne levels in the gas samples were also measured,
and the ratio of 22Ne to 4He also proves that the helium is not of normal
origin.
 
6. Helium has also been detected with the E-Quest equipment in two other
fully independent labs, in other locations. It is difficult to imagine that
someone is following them around with a helium canister, venting it into
the air whenever they get heat (and not at other times).
 
7. Many other CF experiments have also detected helium, although the other
experiments were run at lower power so they found far less helium. Two examples
are the work at China Lake and at NTT. Since helium is a known product of CF,
it would be very strange if the E-Quest experiments did *not* produce it,
because, after all, the laws of physics are uniform everywhere. This experiment
is very similar to the eletrochemical CF experiments, and it produces massive
excess heat beyond chemistry so we can be sure the device is undergoing a CF
reaction. Given those facts, it would be a shock if it did not produce helium.
 
 
Jones adds:
 
     "Potential investors in their company ought to be made aware of these
     facts."
 
This has nothing to do with science. I have no idea if E-Quest is looking for
investors or not, but if it is, I assume both sides are following the usual
steps to ensure due dilligence. I think maybe professors of physics should not
go poking their noses into the affairs of commerce. It is a big mistake for
professors and graduate students like Jones and Johnston to go around
publishing weird, unfounded speculation about other people's private business.
If Jones has some specific knowledge of actual live potential investors (which
I very much doubt), and if he acually believes these claims about helium
magically leaking in only when there is excess heat -- in short, if Jones
seriously does believe that someone "should be made aware" of something --
then I suppose he should contact an appropriate regulatory agency. I don't
think it is appropriate for him to publish such speculation in public.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  How was sci.physics.fusion named?
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How was sci.physics.fusion named?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:45:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Does anyone know how the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion received that label?  

It might have been called sci.physics.coldfusion, or sci.physics.cf, or
something else.  It might even have been called sci.chem.coldfusion, given
that both Fleischmann and Pons were chemists.  

Why was the label sci.physics.fusion chosen?  Who chose it?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenTstolper cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Scott Mueller /  Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:52:44 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

>Does anyone know how the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion received that label?  
>Why was the label sci.physics.fusion chosen?  Who chose it?

Well, in 1989 I was having difficulty following all of the discussion about
P&F's announcement, so I proposed (on alt.config) the creation of 'alt.fusion'
to gather all of the discussions into one place.  Very shortly thereafter,
Kevin Scott of UCSF ran a Usenet "vote" to move alt.fusion to a mainstream
group, as sci.physics.fusion.

So, I guess you'd say I chose it.

         \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 01:42:30 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: 26 Apr 1995 03:38:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: ... 0.15 W input (taking into account electrolysis) and 1 or 2 watts output
: ... there is no ash or any other sign of chemical change.
: ... they used previously I recall it was less than 100 ml. The amount of
: metal on the beads is 10 or 20 mg

: ...if you crave numbers, you should contact CETI.


Well, I was crave'n some numbers so I just up and called Dr. Cravens. :-)

I had a nice 40 minute chat with him, he seemed very friendly and helpful
and definitely has his opinion on things. [Note that Dennis Cravens is not
associated with CETI but I believe he is a science advisor to ENECO.]

The first thing he made abundantly clear to me is that he only intended this
phase of his testing to test for power-in versus power-out and that he
did not yet design his tests to integrate total energy-in versus energy-out.

If I may refer back to his article in Infinite Energy, he approached the
problem in phases, where phase I was simply to view Patterson et al
run through their test methodologies.  Phase II was to combine forces
with Bruce Klein and Cravens himself at a CETI in-house hands-on 
duplication of the Patterson protocols (the results were published.)
Phase III was to take the PPC home with him to improve the thermal stability
and to more fully characterize the thermal behavior of the device.
And finally, since ICCF5 was approaching, Phase IV was to prepare and
operate a demo unit in the corridors of ICCF5.

I asked him if he planned to characterize the energy gain of the device,
but he indicated the next major goal is to increase the operating
wattage into the hundreds of watts -- perhaps by the end of the
summer.  He gave his reasons for this tack but already my memory of the
precise substance of that part of the conversation is fading, and so
I don't want to mischaracterize his remarks -- other than to say that
they were about issues over which reasonable men can reasonably disagree.

Another point stressed by Dr. Cravens was that the demo unit at ICCF5
did not fully achieve the rigor of the unit and tests run previously
at his laboratory.  It was a demo in which some compromises were made
for the sake of mobility and expense/risk.

He did give me some data, admittedly insufficient to draw final
conclusions, that sheds some light on the ICCF5 demo unit.

Firstly, it had about an 80% thermal recovery efficiency (his lab unit
can reach 93% efficiency.)  It produced about one watt of excess
thermal power.  There was approximately 40 mg of metal in the micro-
spheres (J.L.-- I estimate in a volume ratio of 3:1 Ni:Pd) or about 2 cc's
metal/styrene-core.  (J.L.-- 0.9mm core, an angstrom of Cu, 1-2mircon Ni,
1.17micron Pd, 1-2 micron Ni.)  There was about 200 ml of lithium sulfate
electrolye in a recirculating loop. (J.L. -- 1.0M Li2SO4/H2O solution.)

He estimates the demo unit ran approximately 90 hours at one watt excess
with the above quantities of unreplenished components.  He estimates about
0.1 MJ per day (J.L.-- 1x60x60x24 = 0.0864 MJ.)

No deterioration noted upon visual inspection, except there is some
"gunk" on some of the micro-spheres.  No apparent visual difference
in the electrolyte.  Testing for Ni ions in the electrolyte using
dimethyl glyoximine(sp??) came up negative (would turn red) as did
testing with ammonium (would turn blue.)

Well, beyond that, my memory is blank.  Dr. Cravens invited me to call
back again, and suggests that I get off the "internet rumor mill" and
engage in some real experimentation. :-)

Finally, all the characterizations made here were *mine* -- it worries
me that what I say about anyone, and in this case Dr. Cravens, will be
taken to represent his characterizations and ultimately held against him. 

He's a nice guy, and very careful about what he will claim and what he
will not.  In fact, he prefers to publish data and let the conclusions
be drawn by others.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 26 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
