1995.05.09 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
Date: 9 May 1995 04:24:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D89qyt.70F@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

> rs= " ...  Jed Rothwell has made random rants about me in the past.  "
>
>They are not random, but time-correlated comments in response to
>your far-less-than-optimally-intelligent comments, sir.

I note that you originally said that *several* people have commented
on my abilities here (negatively) and that the only ones I could think
of were you and Mr. Rothwell.  I note that not only have you refused
to answer my question about who the others were, you deleted it from
your response.  Speaking of people who run away when caught in a misstatement.
Nor do you provide anything like a refutation to the example I gave about
the Wright Brothers.

> rs=" I never claimed that Reif had the curve in it, only that Logajan posted
> rs= a reference to D2 heating on expansion."
>
>  Doubt anyone here will "see" Mr. Schultz note 
>either his error of this matter, his error regarding the differences 
>between the CRC Table and the isoenthalpic curves,

There was no "CRC Table", BTW.  On rereading what Logajan said, I realize
that I was wrong and that what he claimed was to have paraphrased
the entry in the CRC definitions section (section F in my edition, although
that might not be constant from edition to edition).  For some 
reason I thought that he had posted the inversion temperature for H2
and D2; he had not.  I was wrong, and I apologize for having misspoken.

I realize that the last sentence of the previous paragraph will come
as a big disappointment to you, and I apologize as well for the pain and
suffering it will undoubtedly cause you.

In the meantime, I am *still* awaiting an answer from you about your
institutional affiliation; about which scientific conferences whose
programming you have been involved with; about your list of publications;
and about how my conclusion that a particular ACS symposium chairperson
was probably telling the truth makes me a spokesman for the ACS.  As well
as an explanation of how your preference for personal attacks over 
answering my questions is supposed to be the hallmark of proper behavior
for a "scientist" (sic).
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
Date: 9 May 1995 04:28:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <9505080956.AA13905@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>Mitch was asking for references to the Joule-Thomson effect pertaining
>to deuterium; presumably he is implying that deuterium just might be quite
>different from hydrogen - and maybe he is right. I checked with the Chem.
>Abstracts data base (CAS) and got three hits for Joule-Thomson and deuterium.

The problem with that approach is that if there were a paper (in, say,
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data) entitled "Joule-Thomson coefficients: a
critically reviewed table", and the abstract were "Literature values
of J-T coefficients for 32 gases are critically reviewed and recommended
values tabulated," your search wouldn't have found them.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / M Fullerton /  Energy Balances and CF
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Balances and CF
Date: 9 May 1995 09:19:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

I have come across what appears to be be an entirely ridiculous
"argument" against CF.  Basically it goes like this:  CF is
absolute bunk because there has never been an energy balance
conducted on any CF experiment.

Just curious if there is in fact anything to this.  

--
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't  |  Belief does not
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete     |  reality make.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / mitchell swartz /  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) pt. 1
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) pt. 1
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 10:53:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3omqq4$ldc@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Richard Schultz [ schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] posts:

 rs= In the meantime, I am *still* awaiting an answer from you about ...
 rs=        [zip]

  We will not do your own work for you.  
 The second reason is that you have failed to
answer questions (below). 
 The third reason is that you have violated nettiquette regarding
e-mail.   At this point there is inadequate time or reason to waste on an 
individual like Mr. Schultz, who shares private e-mail unethically,
and unprofessionally.    [Anyone who corresponds with him expecting 
normal behavior ought beware.]    

      Best wishes                 Mitchell Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)

---------- previously and still ------------------------------------
-----------unanswered questions to Mr. R..Schultz------

   In Message-ID: <3lmlun$645@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote 

"Actually, I looked this up, and the Nuclear division had a later deadline
than most,..."

   -Do you dispute that ACS NCDT stonewalled repeated requests by Passell
   and Kohn to meet and discuss the details of the plans and procedures?

    -Do you deny that the ACS News office contacted a selection of those who
 submitted cf abstracts with urgent letters stating it was their intent to
 stage special press arrangements?    Why would that be?

     Do you deny that the Press release to C&EN  may indicate 
   the opposite of such?

  




cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Energy Balances and CF
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Balances and CF
Date: 9 May 1995 13:34:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3onc2f$r7i@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote:

> I have come across what appears to be be an entirely ridiculous
> "argument" against CF.  Basically it goes like this:  CF is
> absolute bunk because there has never been an energy balance
> conducted on any CF experiment.
> 
> Just curious if there is in fact anything to this.  
> 

Hello, Michael:

This is indeed, an inaccurate argument.  _Every_ calorimetric experiment
is an energy balance.  The disagreement arises over whether the inputs and
outputs have been correctly characterized.  I hope this helps.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Douglas Harrell /  Re: Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: gt0603f@prism.gatech.edu (Douglas A. Harrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 9 May 1995 10:07:30 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <3omntt$iud@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> jfloyd@wam.umd.edu
(Jason Edward Floyd) writes:
>Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
>
>: Canadian CANDU heavy water moderated reactors reactors work with natural
>: Uranium.
>
>
>*sheepish grin* True. Though now one has a different enriching process
>(making D2O).  ? for any CANDU people out there: How much does reactor grade
>D2O cost? 

Well, I'm not a CANDU person, but GA Tech does have a HWR (a 5MW whopper!).
I don't know if the D2O is the same grade as that used in a CANDU, or if
the Canadians produce it any cheaper, due to economies of scale.

Our D2O costs us about $100/lb, which works out to a little over $900/gal.
A 55gal drum costs ~$50,000. And if you want one more useless comparison,
we once figured that a cup of D2O coffee would run you $60 :)

The inventory is nominally 2350 gallons of D2O, or about $2,170,000.

Is this cost comparable to what CANDUs pay? Also, what is the
normal inventory of a CANDU? Jeremy? :)

Doug

u
-- 
Douglas A. Harrell              | I'm in real trouble with Billary and the
Georgia Institute of Technology | PC Police: I'm a male, white, conservative,
Atlanta, Georgia                | anti-gun-control, Christian, nuclear 
gt0603f@prism.gatech.edu        | engineer with a '70 Chevy Camaro. Help!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengt0603f cudfnDouglas cudlnHarrell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
Date: Tue, 9 May 95 11:08:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cary Jamison <cary@svl.trw.com> writes:
 
>Yes, it's too bad that those who have claimed to have reproducible cells
>for the last 6 years have been unwilling to share their knowledge. 
>Instead, they give little tidbits of information to try and keep their work
>funded, but not enough for any outside lab to reproduce the effect and
>verify their claims.
 
That is completely wrong. You have obviously never spoken with the CF
researchers, visited their labs, or even read their papers. If you had, you
would have known that there are two groups of researchers, who operate by
two completely different sets of rules:
 
1. The commercial developers, at corporations. These people publish *exact*
descriptions of their work in the form of patents. These patents allow anyone
who is skilled in the art to replicate their work. If the patent does not
have enough information to allow that, it will be ruled invalid by the courts.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. CF patents have been blocked, but you will find
plenty of them in Japan.
 
2. The academic researchers: people like Storms or Mizuno. They tell you
absolutely everything about their work, down to the last detail. They allow
any legit researcher into their labs, and they are happy to assist people
in replicating their experiments. I know people who have visited them and
spent a few weeks learning the techniques first hand.
 
Your assertion that people are keeping the techniques secret is a fantasy.
Naturally, the corporate researchers keep all of their work top-secret until
patents are granted, or they keep it top secret forever as a trade secret.
If they did not do that they would be stealing corporate property, and they
would be in extremely serious trouble, subject to civil and possibly even
criminal suits. Giving away information is exactly the same as handing out
corporate furniture or driving automobiles off the line and giving them
to your friends for free. It is called "stealing" and it is against the law.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Robert Reid /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: reid@pentagon.io.com (Robert Reid)
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: 9 May 1995 10:31:59 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online

>
>You have a very distorted view of netiquette and physics.  I really am
>espousing a return to legitimate scientific principles based on the 
>objective search for knowledge as opposed to the current trend toward 
>bizarre pathological mystic untested theories that argue that empty space 
>is a solid of infinite mass/energy that can create the universe in a Big 
>Bang.  The conformist bigots and politicians that have made modern 
>physics a farce ignore the fact that an objective comparative analysis of 
>the wave and particle models of light in the solar system would be a 
>definitive test of their stationary ether/space/vacuum theoretical 
>arguments because they it know it gives a politically incorrect answer! 
>
>Bryan
>
Mr. Wallace, you are once again missing the point.  Your topic
IS important.  However, even important topics need to be limited to
ONE newsgroup.  I've sent the follow-up to sci.skeptic.
You can change that to the ONE newsgroup of your choice.

Have a nice day, sir.

Robert E. Reid
reid@io.com

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenreid cudfnRobert cudlnReid cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / B Vidugiris /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:09:03 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <3odop4$mll@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
)In article <elbert-chang-0305951125270001@lin126060.res-hall.nwu.edu>
)elbert-chang@nwu.edu (Elbert I. Chang) writes:
)
)> In article <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
)> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
)> 
)>  
)> >   I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour
)> > with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me.
)> 
)> 
)> 
)> OH MY GOD!  An hour-and-a-half with this idiot?  Were these TV people
)> convicted felons or masochists?!

Has this actually made it on the air yet? Did anyone see it?  The networks
don't spend an hour of actual air time on wars, so somehow I doubt they will
spend that long on Ludwig, even though they may have shot that much footage.


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / mitchell swartz /  Energy Balances and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Balances and CF
Subject: Re: Energy Balances and CF
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:35:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-0905950626340001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Energy Balances and CF
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) and 
mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote:

In article <3onc2f$r7i@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca
 = (Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote:
> I have come across what appears to be be an entirely ridiculous
> "argument" against CF.  Basically it goes like this:  CF is
> absolute bunk because there has never been an energy balance
> conducted on any CF experiment.
> Just curious if there is in fact anything to this.  
 =Hello, Michael:
 =This is indeed, an inaccurate argument.  _Every_ calorimetric experiment
 =is an energy balance.  The disagreement arises over whether the inputs and
 =outputs have been correctly characterized.  I hope this helps.
 =--Tom


  Michael may be correct in noting this argument, which by itself
neither proves nor disproves anything. 

 IMHO as described, several calorimeters use power balance
(e.g. flow calorimeters) derived from Newton's law with the
assumption of steady state and the first term of theTaylor series
expansion which is described by the 'law'.  Total energy balance
as such may thus not actually be measured in some cases.
  It would be nice if Vesselin or Tom or other calorimetrist might 
want to elaborate.  


   This does not diminish Thomas' correct
point regarding definition of input and output power, and
thus energy. 
 The definition of these  may be the biggest problem with/for
many putative over-unity systems.

  Best wishes.
           Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: SBSL vs MBSL
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SBSL vs MBSL
Date: 9 May 95 10:17:02 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3ole39$sv4@stratus.skypoint.net>, 
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> I seem to recall that Dr. Steve Jones would periodically list the different
> properties of single bubble sonoluminescence versus multiple bubble
> sonoluminescence -- and if I'm not putting words in Dr. Jones' mouth,
> I seem to recall that he said that while fusion conditions might be
> reached in SBSL, that those conditions were "not possible" using MBSL.
> 
> In the April 29 issue of Science News, however, it mentions that Dr.
> Larry Crum is investigating whether MBSL can get as hot as SBSL.  So
> apparently there is as yet no basis to conclude that the conditions
> in MBSL cannot reach those of SBSL.
> 
> --
>  - 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    -

Not quite:  SBSL is more *likely* to allow high temps/pressures needed for
thermonuclear fusion, but the conditions may be achievable in MBSL also --
depends on whose theory one subscribes too, and there are several tenuous
theories out there.  That's what makes the field interesting (among other
things).  

In particular, our experiments here include both single-bubble and multiple-
bubble sonoluminescence, looking for neutrons in both cases.  We have not
seen any neutron signal yet, however.

Recently, two students and I have been able to demonstrate MBSL in a darkened
classroom -- of sufficient intensity that all in the room could see the
glow.  This required several developments, including a suitable aqueous
mixture, bubbling Ar through the mixture, and cooling the solution to about
0 C.  So we're having some fun with MBSL also.

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: 9 May 95 10:38:02 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1995May8.153201.2221@physc2.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
> A couple of people chided me for suggesting that the tiny amount of 3He
> apparently found in the E-quest experiments could be due to contamination,
> since 3He is so rare and expensive etc.
> 
> Let me remind you:  3He is the product of tritium decay, and tritium is
> not so rare a contaminant of Pd.  (For example, recall the retraction of
> tritium-production claims by the Kevin Wolf group at Texas A&M -- who found 3H
> contamination in the palladium they were using in electrolysis experiments.)  
> 
It occurred to me that some may wish to know the justification of my
statement above that 3H is a "not so rare" contaminant of palladium, in
addition to the evidence for such contamination found by Wolf et al.

Palladium is often used as a filter for hydrogen isotopes, since it allows
these to rapidly diffuse through while blocking helium, oxygen, nitrogen --
everything else.  We so used Pd filters in muon-catalyzed fusion experiments at
Los Alamos -- my first acquaintance with Pd diffusers-- beginning in in
1982-83.  Pd diffusers are by now quite common, and this may account for
the contamination reported by Wolf (and, I think, by E-quest) in their
palladium supplies.

> So my hypothesis for the origin of the
> 3He in the E-quest experiments is that it arises from 3H decay, with
> tritium being a contaminant.
> 
> The time for "intriguing indications" is long past; experiments must now
> be performed with state-of-the-art equipment with careful controls, and
> with thorough, public documentation.
> 
> --Steven Jones

Further information regarding palladium diffusers for cleaning hydrogen
isotopes is found in the excellent "Hydrogen Properties for Fusion Energy"
by P. Clark Souers of Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab.
This reference also provides a good discussion of Joule-Thomsen expansion
for hydrogen isotopes including deuterium (better than refs. cited here
before IMHO).  Clark Souers has done an excellent job in gathering in this
book an enormous body of knowledge regarding hydrogen isotopes.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Energy Balances and CF
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Balances and CF
Date: 9 May 1995 21:03:41 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <D8BKr7.Gn8@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>  In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-0905950626340001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: Energy Balances and CF
> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) and 
> mefuller@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote:
> 

[MEF asks about energy balances, and I reply that _every_ calorimeter
utilizes an energy balance]

> 
>   Michael may be correct in noting this argument, which by itself
> neither proves nor disproves anything. 
> 
>  IMHO as described, several calorimeters use power balance
> (e.g. flow calorimeters) derived from Newton's law with the
> assumption of steady state and the first term of theTaylor series
> expansion which is described by the 'law'.  Total energy balance
> as such may thus not actually be measured in some cases.
>   It would be nice if Vesselin or Tom or other calorimetrist might 
> want to elaborate.  
> 

A power balance is no more than the time derivative mode of an energy
balance.  In this case, accumulation and depletion are addressed as rates 
The use of steady state operating conditions obviates the need for such
terms, but introduces the requirement that one assure onesself of steady
state operation.  From such uncertainty arise such arguments as those
concerning "stored heat".

> 
>    This does not diminish Thomas' correct
> point regarding definition of input and output power, and
> thus energy. 
>  The definition of these  may be the biggest problem with/for
> many putative over-unity systems.
> 

Historically, they have been the _sole_ problem for alleged overunity devices.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  BILLC /  Re: H2O is a-okay; a prio
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O is a-okay; a prio
Date: Tue, 09 May 95 17:00:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

WR>I would fully agree data should win. However, it isn't really the data
WR>that is in question. Instead, it is the interpretation of the data that is
WR>in question. Perhaps, there is a better explaination, read theory, for
WR>some of the anomolous heat generation than cold fusion.

That's exactly the point!  If it works we'll figure it out later ( I
should say they will.  I've only had 8cr.hrs of physics).  After all
Noah got soused many centuries before they understood the mechanism.
---
 ž SLMR 2.1a ž Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  BILLC /  Joule-Thomson, deuterium
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Joule-Thomson, deuterium
Date: Tue, 09 May 95 17:00:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

DB>Mitch was asking for references to the Joule-Thomson effect pertaining
DB>to deuterium; presumably he is implying that deuterium just might be quite
DB>different from hydrogen - and maybe he is right. I checked with the Chem.
DB>Abstracts data base (CAS) and got three hits for Joule-Thomson and deuterium


I hope that you will post the summary of the first two references!

I enjoyed your anthropomorphic account of the J-T effect.  Even so, if
excess energy is produced and due to this effect in the D case, the only
energy input is from the electric current,  Excess should still be
excess?
---
 ž SLMR 2.1a ž Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  Kennel /  Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
Date: 9 May 1995 20:09:27 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> Cary Jamison <cary@svl.trw.com> writes:
>  
> >Yes, it's too bad that those who have claimed to have reproducible cells
> >for the last 6 years have been unwilling to share their knowledge. 
> >Instead, they give little tidbits of information to try and keep their work
> >funded, but not enough for any outside lab to reproduce the effect and
> >verify their claims.
>  
> That is completely wrong. You have obviously never spoken with the CF
> researchers, visited their labs, or even read their papers. 

Ok.  Whose work and results do you think has been successfully and
independently verified?  What are the results?

Note that instrumentation ought to be *different* for verification
even though the cell should be the same: you don't want the same sorts of 
systematic measurement effects.

Otherwise you ought to see *quantitative* verification of the
effect across different measurement setups.

> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 23:45:08 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3omqq4$ldc@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>as an explanation of how your preference for personal attacks over 
>answering my questions is supposed to be the hallmark of proper behavior
>for a "scientist" (sic).

Gee, Dick, I was sure that Schwartz stated that hydrogen did not
exibit reverse heat transfer. I wasn't sure that he made the statement
because you didn't supply a reference or because he doesn't believe
in it. He seemed to know about the effect though, so I am not sure
what all the waste of bandwidth on his part has been.

Is there some question of the way expansion at room temperature effect
hydrogen's temperature?

Crikeys, a passing comment by Dr. Jones brings foam to the lips of
Schwartz. And why?

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Joule-Thomson/heating in D2 bubble/SL
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Joule-Thomson/heating in D2 bubble/SL
Date: 9 May 95 11:36:46 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Has anyone considered the impact of a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient on
heating inside a deuterium (or HD or DT) bubble during cavitation?  This 
question arose during a recent conversation with Nate Hoffman.

That is, heating in a hydrogen-isotope bubble during sonoluminescence may be
quite different than that which occurs for air, and this may well affect the
temperatures and densities attained during bubble collapse.  This effect may
also influence shock-wave formation and propagation.

William Moss of LLNL -- you're the expert on this -- are you listening in?
Can you comment?  Did you consider this effect in your theoretical study
of SL/fusion?

Thanks -- Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
Date: Tue, 9 May 95 21:47:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>I reject them to the extent that I advocate doing the experiment with an
>eye towards careful diagnosis rather than commercialization. So, you
 
Nonsense. You reject them because you have not read the literature and
you know nothing about the work. The experiments at places like SRI and
KEK and the Navy use the most careful diagnosis modern science is capable
of. The work is impeccable.
 
>discord with past results. I want to fixate on a well diagnosed
>experiment and find out what is going on (and I expect, what
>is going wrong), because I doubt there will be any effect to commericalize
>anyway. 
 
You are free to fixate on such experiments as much as you like. There are
thousands to choose from. You have no reason to "doubt there will be any
effect." How can you know that? Your statements about the supposed lack of
rigor in the work reveal that you have not read the literature and you know
nothing about it.
 
Whatever makes you think that the scientists at places like KEK share *my*
goals and my point of view? We are diametrically opposed! It is true that
I, and a few others, think that commercialization should be the first,
immediate goal of this research, but the vast majority of researchers think
the way you do. They are, as you say, fixated on doing perfect experiments.
They had done them! Scads of them! You don't know about them, so you claim
they have not.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  EKennel /  Re: what's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: ekennel@aol.com (EKennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: what's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 9 May 1995 21:52:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Dick,
	In the past, we’ve disagreed on a number of issues, but our
correspondence, at least, has been free from the personal digs which
others use.  I hope we can continue to continue to exchange information
and opinions on a professional level.
	In that regard, I want to clarify my opinion on Hagelstein’s
theory.  I have not intended to assure the public that this theory is
“well in hand.”  Rather, experimental evidence is needed to prove or
disprove it.  I support the opinion that some cold fusion data may be
real, but it need not be tied to the “special condition” hypothesis, or
any of the other more fantastic postulates.  You and I have previously
been in agreement that the CF effect, if it exists, is highly unlikely to
be fusion.
	At any rate, as I understand it, the Haglesteing theory is
consistent with the following:
	
	1.  Positive phonon gain in deuterided and hydrided metal
lattices.
	
	2.  k-alpha x-ray production and gamma production from metastable
nuclear lattice atom states.
	
	3.  Single-neutron transmutations of lattice atoms.
	
	4.  Alpha emission from normally stable lattice atoms if highly
nonequilibrium lattice phonon populations exist.

	5.  Tritium production via neutron absorption by deuterium.
	
	6.  Excess heat in Pd-D, Ni-H, Ti-H and other systems.  Heavy
water excess heat is only observed when a silicon surface layer is formed
on Pd, required alkali salt addition to the water. 

	As far as point (1) is concerned, no one has attempted to look for
the predicted effect.  In addition, I do not think that there is currently
persuasive data on point (2) despite a fair amount of effort to find it. 
I think that 4 and 5 have probably occurred, but I understand that you do
not accept the data.  As far as point 6 is concerned, you and I are in
agreement that the scientific community will not accept thermocouple data
as proof for nuclear transitions.  
	You may recall that the Hagelstein model suggests that 

	(1) collective behavior of lattice atoms permits interactions with
individual nuclei,  allowing nuclear transitions to be realease their
energy in the form of an altered phonon mode structure (heat).  For this
to be true, phonon gain ought to be observable experimentally.

	(2)  Excess heat is due ultimately to binding energy release of
surface atoms in the lattice due to single-neutron shifts. In the case of
the Patterson cell, the claimed thermal energy is sufficiently high that
it would have to be associated with a noticeable shift in the isotopic
composition of the cathode.  If there is no isotopic shift in the cathode
(especially in the surface layer), this would be a powerful argument
against the Hagelstein theory.  I would go so far as to say that if a
definitive experiment is done with these electrodes and it turns up no
isotopic shift, then either the experiment is bad or the Hagelstein theory
is wrong.  On the other hand, if there is an isotopic shift, I would argue
that this is proof of a nuclear effect.  

	The Patterson cell contains a very thin layer of Pd, creating a
large surface area to volume ratio.  Since there is less volume, it loads
more quickly.  If you assume Faradaic loading (i.e., hydrogen influx in
the cathode is roughly equal to ion current in the electrolyte), it
probably takes a few tens of minutes to load, which is the time it
reportedly takes for excess heat to occur.  
	Thus, I think it is now possible to collect the data that would
determine whether Hagelstein is on to something or not.  If phonon gain is
observed, and if isotopic shifting is observed, yielding a concrete
estimate of the total amount of binding energy released, I can see no
logical alternative but to accept the claim of excess heat if it matches
the binding energy difference.  We desperately need to do these
experiments to see if the model is correct.  Unfortunately even many
advocates think that such experiments are a waste of time--either we
should start building power plants next Tuesday, or else we put cold
fusion in the same garbage pile with n-rays and polywater.  
	Anyway, in the case of ultrasonic cavitation, the temperatures
achieved are certainly high enough to dissociate deuterium and oxygen or
hydrogen and oxygen, and to inject the atoms with sufficiently high energy
to penetrate the lattice. However, I think you are probably correct in
your inference that high loading (say, about 0.6 or higher in bulk Pd) has
not yet been published.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenekennel cudlnEKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / G Beikert /  Re: 99% done
     
Originally-From: et5@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Guenther Beikert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 99% done
Date: 9 May 1995 12:00:29 GMT
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany

Thank you for this article

Guenther Beikert



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenet5 cudfnGuenther cudlnBeikert cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / William Rowe /  Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 03:10:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3omev5$qqg@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

>In article <5++dqXj.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>> browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
>>  
>> Oh, any theory is fine with me. I don't care if it is fusion or not. What I
>> object to are people like Dick Blue and Barry Merriman. Merriman says he is i
>> ...  he is suspicious of light water results a priori.
>> He says his theory shows the results must be wrong, and therefore he rejects
>> them. That's backwards. 
>
>I reject them to the extent that I advocate doing the experiment with an
>eye towards careful diagnosis rather than commercialization. So, you
>see, the effect of our different biases. You want to charge ahead with
>commercialization, because you have no concern for the enormous
>discord with past results. I want to fixate on a well diagnosed
>experiment and find out what is going on (and I expect, what
>is going wrong), because I doubt there will be any effect to commericalize
>anyway. 
>

Somehow the editing of past posts got this confused. It is Jed not I that
stated "any therory is fine" etc. I would support the position that data
is the ultimate test of any theory. However, existing fusion data and
current theory is pretty convincing that light water fusion isn't a viable
interpretation of the existing CF database. In fact, the "excess heat"
data has not yet been linked convincingly to "cold fusion".
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 /  charl@freenet. /  Cold Fusion: The Musical
     
Originally-From: charl@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: The Musical
Date: 10 May 1995 02:33:21 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Hello you scientist types you.  My name is Wes.  I live in Edmonton, 
Canada.  My friends Paul and Joe and I are almost finished writing a play 
entitled "Cold Fusion: The Musical".  We were going to call it "Pulp 
Fusion", but we didn't.  The show will be performed by the Three Dead 
Trolls in a Baggie comedy troupe, and opens June 1.  But never mind the 
advertising, that's not entirely why I'm here.
I need a transcript, or videotape, or audiotape or anything of the 
original Cold Fusion Press Conference of March 23, 1989.  If anyone has 
it, please let me know.  Also, if anyone wants to peruse the script, I 
might be happy to post it somewhere, although I must say I do fear Dr. 
Steven Jones may not appreciate his namesake carrying a bullwhip and a 
old, beat-up hat; fighting snakes and beating up Ninjas in order to 
assasinate Pons and Fleischmann...
Oh well... thanks for your time.

--
Wes                          email: charl@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
EDMONTON, AB,
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencharl cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
Date: 10 May 1995 02:20:15 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) [wrote]:
 
>      "Maybe its time to review the basic signals involved in some the
>      experiments currently being discussed. . . .  Next let's consider some
>      special features of the Griggs set up. Here we have some thermocouples
>      sensing temperature while a 20 KW motor is churning the bejabbers out of
>      some water.  Review for me some basic electric circuit theory that may
>      be involved here.  When you wire up a three phase motor there are 5
>      wires: phases A, B, and C; AC power common; and "Green Wire" safety
>      ground. . . .

Three phase motors themselves usually don't have neutral 
(what you call AC power common) connections, but the 
controller might.  Does the motor have a speed controller,
or is it just on/off?

>      How are the thermocouple signals isolated electrically from the motor
>      and the pump?"

jedrothwell@delphi.com answered:

> Well, for one thing the motor is on three phase electricity and the
> instruments are on ordinary AC, so they are isolated back at the Georgia Power
> plant. 

Bzzzzt.... Sorry, but thanks for playing.

The three phase and 'ordinary' 120 VAC could be coming from the
same circuit panel.  The 120 VAC is just any one of the phases
to the neutral if he's using 208 VAC phase-to-phase.

So the motor and the instrumentation *may* share the same
neutral and one of the phases from the circuit panel.
The wiring would be separate but may travel through 
the same conduit.

However...

I don't know if this is the case in Griggs' setup, and it may
not matter.  I would think that the instrumentation has some
type of noise filtering in its power supply for just this sort
of noise.  Also, the fact that the motor and instrumentation 
are on separate circuits would provide pretty good isolation.

This one could probably be settled with a good 'scope.








For another, who knows? Who cares? Blue is describing an imaginary
> analysis of imaginary solutions to pretend problems. He is pretending that the
> thermocouples may have a problem, but of course they do not. Maybe it is time
> to review the basic scientific method, instead of drifting off into
> cloud-cuckoo-land speculation about non-existent effects from non-existent
> electrical noise.
>  
> Before solving a problem, it is standard operating scientific procedure to do
> a quick check to see if the problem exists. A quick check shows that the
> Griggs thermocouples are bang on, right within a degree Fahrenheit of where
> they should be. If there was a problem, it would dead simple to spot. All you
> have to do is:
>  
> 1. Compare the thermocouple readings to readings from mercury thermometers,
> bimetallic dial thermometers and other devices. There are dial thermometers
> sticking out of every strategic location in the machine. They agree with the
> thermocouples. You would have make a deliberate effort to miss seeing that.
> You would have to wear blinders; or take off your glasses; or look for lab
> notebooks instead of glancing at the machine. . .
>  
> 2. Calibrate the thermocouple with ice water and boiling water. How else does
> anyone calibrate a thermocouple?!?
>  
> 3. Turn on the machine, turn if off again, watch to see if it has any effect
> on the thermocouple readings. Scoop out a bucket of water from the barrel with
> thermocouples, take it outside, and measure the temperature *far away from the
> electric motor*. Use a little common sense!
>  
> 4. Run a blank test.
>  
> We checked. I checked, Griggs checked, anyone with an ounce of sense would
> perform test # 1 fifteen seconds after arriving at the factory. Since we did
> not observe any problem, obviously that means the thermocouples are installed
> and grounded correctly, so this idle speculation about problems that might
> exist if the thermocouples were not working is a waste of time. If my car had
> a flat tire I might not have driven to work on time this morning, but I did
> drive to work on time so there is no point in playing imaginary games about
> imaginary problems with my car. Right?
>  
> As for Cravens, he described the experiment during his lecture in boring
> detail, including electrical grounds, specific heat of the electrolyte, and
> much else. People like, say, Morrison, heard all about it and raised no
> objection. So I guess they buy the whole thing. I suppose Morrison has no
> technical objections to the Amoco work or the KEK work, or SRI or any of the
> others who reported at ICCF5. In fact, he made no technical comments at all
> about calorimetry in his report, except when he said that the NEDO 16% excess
> might not be statistically significant. This is wrong, as I am sure he
> realizes. Their calorimeter is as good as SRI's. It can measure to a fraction
> of one percent, so 16% is a very high signal to noise ratio; quite
> significant.
>  
> - Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / 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, 9 May 1995 07:51:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95May3111545@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc.
ug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes:
>In article <D7u4EI.LC@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>It was an easy shot, because you've been setting yourself up for it,
>but it was not a "cheap" shot--you deserved it.  

No, I do not.   It's probably just an aberration in perception.  Have
it checked.  

>Even if you have
>produced the miracle you think you have, it is a small, cold, high Z
>plasma with no internal heating. 

Let see, are you comparing the airborne PMK with a fusion PMK??  

Now since the airborne version is more comparable to Ball Lightning
then the fusion PMK, don't you think that "cold" and "high Z" and 
"no internal heating" are relative?   

For example, most theories of BL I know about couldn't produce 
excited nitrogen in a 1 to 2 centimeter zone around the Mantle.  That 
suggests some kind of "high" electronic?? temperature.  Also, if 
the Mantle has currents only at its innermost and low density 
vacuum-boundary surface, it will likely be energized by ionizing 
radiation from the Magnetically vacuum insulated Kernel plasma.   
After all, the stored energy has to get out through the Mantle in
some way.  That means the Kernel plasma is relatively hot and
ionizing  (for such an intermediate "Z" (oxygen and nitrogen).  

Now, just why do you think there is no ohmic heating in the Kernel
plasma???  What are your (A. Carlson) numbers?  

>A reactor grade plasma is none of
>these. The tokamak program tends to build new machines with parameters
>at most 3 or 4 times larger than existing machines. 

That's a laugh.  The parameter is "n*T*tau" times the to-electric-power 
conversion-efficiency, and whatever the tendency was in the past, just 
how do you think the "tendency is going to behave in the future??  
What?? can it gain by a factor of 500??  Nope! does that mean (using
your estimate of 3 to 4) we have 500/3.5 as the number of "new" reseach 
fusion machines necessary to build and operate which the world has to pay 
for: "BEFORE it works"???  .. ..  OR is the tendency weakening??  - -  
so that it will take 500/2.5  or 500/2 machines to deliver commercial 
power.  

>That is a small
>enough jump to be sure the new machine will work, but large enough
>that you will learn something interesting. 

Boy, oh boy  we learn something interesting  and for only seven to 
twenty billion "$".   And a big enough jump in the price of the NEXT
research tokamak so that it is CERTAIN NOT TO BE BUILT.   After all
nobody  (not even congress persons can be that unaware).  

>The development of a
>compact concept can proceed much faster, but it can't skip any steps,

Of course it can skip "steps", because it doesn't have the enumerable 
physics issues to solve like the tokamak.  Get real.  We simply have 
engineered our way out of the problems and into solutions which work 
orders of magnitude better!   Surely you can think of a few things???   

>and it is always possible that it will stop working at some scale.

What is this? a wishing of ill on the competition??   CT's are MORE
stable  and get even MORE stable when compressed!!  Consider 
conductivity and mag field stiffness.  As I say,  from BL to sun's
version of same; they work.  

>With respect to the pulse time of tokamaks, we have regimes of good
>confinement that are stationary over many energy and particle
>confinement times. The only thing that could stop a steady state
>machine from functioning the same way is a phenomenon with a longer
>characteristic time scale. Candidates are impurity accumulation, wall
>pumping, and wall heating. We take the difficulties of extrapolation
>seriously, you don't.

I don't take it seriously???? Wrong!  Why do you think so.  Why do you 
think we exchange the wall AND material with every shot???   We aren't 
idiots.  -- - not inferring that the tokamak community has any such 
idiots necessarily.  This is true if some of them would advocate rising 
again for the next try in front of a firing squad that missed them on the 
first volley.  Kind of pathetic though.  Do they have a Anti-Cruelty to 
Vacuum-Wall's Society set up yet???   .. .. if you catch the analogy.  

>> NOTE:
>> System engineering, isn't exactly the most successfully utilized 
>> discipline in development the tokamak concept.

>I don't think you have any idea how many engineers are working at the
>plasma labs and on the design of ITER. 

HA!   It's not the numbers, dear man.  It's more a matter of TIMING.  
Sure bring them in, when the concept is cast in concrete??!  too late
I'm sorry !!  These engineers should have been called upon to CHOSE 
the concept.  You don't think the tokamak would have survived a 
competitive engineering analysis, do you??  Have you read any of 
L. J. Perkins comments on the subject of what's a plausible power 
generator??  

>The tokamak program is not just
>physicists. And while we're on the subject, I would like to point out
>that *real* engineers, embodied by the IEEE, have endorsed an expanded
>fusion program. They support alternate concepts and ICF, but the first
>item on the list is ITER. Take note: Professional engineers ...
>support ... a tokamak. 

HA!   Ask these "(the actual real live) engineers directly.  That hoax 
is "engineered" annually by a lobbyist that was the fusion point man on 
the Science committee for a few years before he left and became a 
lobbyist for the IEEE and uses it to push his fusion agenda.  Do you 
think that the engineers had ANYTHING to do with that statement????   
come on .. it's been a scam  year after year after year since this guy 
started his lobbying.  

Actually, the DoE used this line or was it the FPA??? Anyway it usually
goes like:

                "The IEEE  represents  xx thousands of engineers, 
                     and they endorse the pro fusion spending of 
                     VAST funds on the ITER .. .    etc etc etc."    

NO Bull  this is a purely lobbyist ripoff.   Al something... but I 
can't think of his last name for the moment.   He might have worked
for Lloyd of TN.  

>The engineers I work with are well aware of torques and image
>currents. They tell me what we're asking for is difficult, but doable,
>and if we would like to make their life easier, we will look for
>plasma physics that will allow a tokamak to run with less current and
>lower peak heat loads. So let me go do that now ...

ABSOLUTELY    NOT!    Since you asked!
FIRST Of All, 
What you asking of them is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.  But you chaps are too
proud to EVOLVE to a more sophisticated and elegant grandson of tokamak.  
It's that simple.   Still you should know better and stop using the
bucks|DM|-Y- that came from the people to develop fusion, and get away 
from keeping a lost dream alive.   

Let's follow up on your accomodation of the engineers' request for less 
current!

With less current -> lower pressure -> lower pressure -> less power 
density (by the square of the pressure difference) -> less power 
density -> requires a BIGGER MACHINE to meet demand-> a BIGGER 
Machine -> a more costly machine -> a more costly machine -> a 
                          DEAD FUSION PROGRAM.     

Yep  You are one well trained tokamaketeer (rhymes with racketeer).    :-) 
   just kidding as usual ...    You do get the analogy?? and .. . 

you do see how such thinking is short sighted?  

                         Ignore Engineering in the 
                         Development of Technology 
                           (at the Outset), then
                     Sooner or later Reality takes over
                        and PUTS YOU OUT OF BUSINESS.  

>-- 
>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:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: 8 May 95 15:01:45 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

The fact the deuterium gas (near room temp.) *heats* during escape under
pressure has been thoroughly aired by now -- yes, hydrogen gases at these
temps have a *negative* Joule-Thomsen coefficient.  This fact caught
Mitch Swartz by surprise evidently, but he was corrected by Schultz (sp?
sorry), Cobb, Logajan and others (thanks).

Dieter:  this phenomenon may account for the explosion that occurred at
SRI during release of pressurized deuterium in the cold fusion experiments 
of Mike
McKubre et al. -- the explosion a few years ago that killed one of the
researchers.  As I understand what happened, the pressure built up due to
a valve failure during a Pons-Fleischman-type electrolysis experiment, and
Riley was standing near the apparatus when a rupture occurred and the D2
escaped rapidly.  But this expansion through the rupture *heated* the
D2, I think enough to have ignited the D2 in air.

BTW, EPRI funding of McKubre continued for a few years after the tragic
accident.  But now, EPRI funding of McKubre (and indeed of *any* cold fusion
research, I understand) has now terminated.

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: 8 May 95 15:32:01 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

A couple of people chided me for suggesting that the tiny amount of 3He
apparently found in the E-quest experiments could be due to contamination,
since 3He is so rare and expensive etc.

Let me remind you:  3He is the product of tritium decay, and tritium is
not so rare a contaminant of Pd.  (For example, recall the retraction of
tritium-production claims by the Kevin Wolf group at Texas A&M -- who found 3H
contamination in the palladium they were using in electrolysis experiments.)  

So my hypothesis for the origin of the
3He in the E-quest experiments is that it arises from 3H decay, with
tritium being a contaminant.

The time for "intriguing indications" is long past; experiments must now
be performed with state-of-the-art equipment with careful controls, and
with thorough, public documentation.


Now let me add that I have spoken to Russ George of E-quest (on May 5).
Russ assured me that further experiments are going on -- I understand
at an independent laboratory.  This sounds like the right thing to do.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) pt. 1
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) pt. 1
Date: 10 May 1995 05:12:32 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

Mitchell Swartz appears to have lost, alas, whatever small ability he
had retained for rational discourse.  His "explanations" (read excuses)
for his refusal to engage in same are so transparent that H. G. Wells,
I think, would be proud.  Does he honestly believe that anyone (with the
possible exception of himself) fails to see through his use of obfuscation,
irrelevance and personal attacks as an alternative to actually addressing
the issues that are raised?

In article <D8B4wp.MIy@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  We will not do your own work for you.  

Is this the editorial "we," the imperial "we," or the "let us make man
in Our image" we of Genesis 1?

In any case, I fail to see in what sense it is "my work" to divine your
affiliation.  It seems to me that "Do you work for Millipore" is a
question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", which would take
less effort (I am assuming here that you can tell whether you work for
Millipore or not) than writing dozens of lines of irrelevancies.  Similarly,
it is not at all clear to me that there is a better way of finding out
with which conferences you have been involved than by asking you.

I find it amusing that you on the one hand make extravagant claims for your
position here as the defender of the scientific method, but on the other
hand, when someone asks you for information that real live scientists
freely give to each other (affiliation, list of publications, etc.), you not
only refuse to answer the question, but delete the question and any
references to it from your response.

And yes, I am not unaware that certain loud posters to s.p.f. use "We will
not do your [own work, homework] for you" as a synonym for "I would find
actually answering your question embarrassing."

> The second reason is that you have failed to
>answer questions (below). 

We have been through this before.  The way that discourse between rational
and reasonable people normally goes is that when the party of the first
part takes a position, explains his qualifications for taking that
position, and then asks the party of the second part what *his*
qualifications are to dispute the position taken by the party of the first
part, then the party of the second part responds to those issues.  He
does not respond with a series of irrelevant questions (see below) and
then say "I will not take part in any discussion with you because you
won't answer my questions."

But you can't fool me:  I know very well that there ain't no sanity clause.

This "reason" is of course easily seen to be yet another example of post
hoc rationalization.  I do not understand why you expect me to answer
all of your questions, when you will answer none of mine (and, to descend
for a moment to the level of discourse that you obviously prefer, I Asked
You First).  Or rather, I understand all too well why you use this 
"you won't answer my questions" smokescreen, escpecially as we have been
through this before.

> The third reason is that you have violated nettiquette regarding
>e-mail.   At this point there is inadequate time or reason to waste on an 
>individual like Mr. Schultz, who shares private e-mail unethically,
>and unprofessionally.    [Anyone who corresponds with him expecting 
>normal behavior ought beware.]    

It is generally considered a violation of netiquette to post email received
from an individual without that individual's consent.  Now even granting
for the moment that I made such an (unspecified, nota bene) violation,
said violation could only have happened in the past few days -- that is,
long since you began refusing to respond to my queries and inquiries.  Thus
we see that your third "reason" is an obvious attempt at an exceptionally
lame post hoc excuse for your refusal to answer the issues I raised in
the initial discussion.

As it happens, the only thing that I can imagine you might be talking about
is a reference I made to a claim you made in email about your publication
list.  Now, in the first place, I felt that my reference to what you said
in email was a distant enough paraphrase of what was said that it does
not qualify as a violation of netiquette.  And in the second place, it
is definitely not a violation of netiquette for me to post to Usenet something
that *I* had written in email, nor is it a violation of netiquette to post to
Usenet the information that you refused to respond to my email (which,
by the way, was far more polite than anything you've ever written me).
And in the third place, I find it hard to understand why you should get
so upset about a reference to your claims about scientific publications
of which you are the author.  Most scientists consider their publication
lists a matter not simply of public record, but of personal pride, and are
far too happy to share with anyone who wants to know (as well as many
who don't) such information.  Now, I have asked you on several 
occasions about what publications you have (BTW, I would be more than
happy to send anyone who cares a copy of my own publication list), and
you have refused to respond.  I would hate to think that this refusal
was a result of your claims about your publication list having not been
quite true.

>---------- previously and still ------------------------------------
>-----------unanswered questions to Mr. R..Schultz------

>   -Do you dispute that ACS NCDT stonewalled repeated requests by Passell
>   and Kohn to meet and discuss the details of the plans and procedures?

I have no way of knowing.  If all I have to go on is your word, then I
would doubt it on that basis alone.  You do not seem to have read my
explanation of how these programs are generally put together.  What
you call "stonewalling" I would call "refusing to deal with the clueless."
I have explained previously in detail why Passell and Kohn gave every
evidence of being in the "clueless" category; and this is part and parcel of
the very issues that you seem to be, um, stonewalling on.

>    -Do you deny that the ACS News office contacted a selection of those who
> submitted cf abstracts with urgent letters stating it was their intent to
> stage special press arrangements?    Why would that be?

Could you please give me the reference to the post in which you first
asked this question?  Who were those in the "selection" and who were not?
(i.e. even if what you say were true, if the "selection" were, Pons and
Fleischmann, then it would be perfctly understandable).  As it was,
the followup article in C&EN did not seem to indicate that there were
any special press arrangements made anyway.

>     Do you deny that the Press release to C&EN  may indicate 
>   the opposite of such?

Could you please give me the reference to the post in which you
first asked this question?  In any case, you have to be mor
specfic about which "Press release to C&EN" you mean.

But these questions are all completely irrelevant to the issue at hand,
which is was the *symposium organizer's story* likely to be true?  I
concluded on the basis of my own experience with scientific meetings
that her version of the story was more likely to be true than yours was.
You have not presented any evidence that she was telling anything less
than the truth; you have not explained how her reorganization of the
symposium to allow everyone who submitted a paper to present it was
"censoring" cold fusion, while only allowing one-fourth of those who
submitted to present their work would not have been; you have not disputed
my simple calculation that regardless of who was stonewalling whom, who
was sending press releases and letters to whom, and who is and is not utterly
without a clue, it was mathematically impossible for fourteen people to
present half-hour talks in a four-hour session.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
Date: 10 May 1995 06:20:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: Is there some question of the way expansion at room temperature effect
: hydrogen's temperature?

There still is in my mind.  Have we determined if the T-J effect only
kicks in in expansion through a nozzle (as suggested by the CRC Handbook)
or *any* expansion, such as volume expansion in an expanding container.


--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <D8CJ58.JJx@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <D8CJ58.JJx@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 05:12:52 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <D8CJ58.JJx@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <D8CJ58.JJx@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 05:13:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Paul Koloc /  cancel <D8AwHC.8J4@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <D8AwHC.8J4@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 05:38:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL1]

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Paul Koloc /  cancel <D8AwHC.8J4@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <D8AwHC.8J4@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 05:38:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL1]

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May 10 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
