1995.05.11 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 00:00:32 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 5 May 1995 19:27:43 -0400 elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) wrote:
[snip]
>experimentally verified), the following reactions can occur:  neutron
>transfer to deuterium from Pd or other lattice atom, creating tritium;
>alpha emission creating helium; or neutron shifting on a surface silicide
>layer (created by leaching silicon from glass containment due to LiOD or
>LiOH transport) creating excess heat. 

Perhaps a variation on this last suggestion, is resposible for the
creation at high temperature and pressure, of helium in natural gas
deposits?
I presume that under these conditions, there will be H2, HD, and D2
present in the natural gas (even if only in small amounts).
 
>	It is not trivial to create a highly loading Pd cathode as is well
>known.  However, the Patterson approach of using a very thin Pd layer with
>a high surface area to volume ratio appears to be a very sound approach to
>simplifying that problem.  It may very well be that he can achieve
>Faradaic loading efficiencies up beyond the 0.90 range, which would be
>high enough to achieve Hagelstein-predicted cold fusion effects. 
>Incidentally, nickel-light water and titanium-light water effects are also
>predicted.

Is there a place for iron in this list (either with regard to H or D)?
[snip]

>Best regards,
>Elliot Kennel
>Yellow Springs OH


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 /  Anarch /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: anarch@cse.ucsc.edu (Anarch)
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: 11 May 1995 01:47:02 GMT
Organization: National Association for the Abolition of Clueless People

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> A pour il Mondo movere  (spelling?)
>> 
>> Nonetheless, the Earth moves
>
>  Could, someone please correct me on the spelling above. What were
>Galileo's exact words. Thanks

The quotation traditionally ascribed to him is "Eppur si muove," but most
regard it as apocryphal.

anarch@cse.ucsc.edu +-+-+-+-+  This is pure imagination.  But, am I paranoia?
D I S C L A I M E R :   E V E R Y T H I N G   I   W R I T E   I S   F A L S E
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenanarch cudlnAnarch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / jim frost /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: jimf@world.std.com (jim frost)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks
rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 02:33:02 GMT
Organization: Software Tool & Die

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>Can anyone out there list the 94 most important
>Greek and Roman gods.

Well, that would depend a whole lot on which Greek or Roman you ask
or, if you're using literary references, which ones you trust.

What the hell this has to do with bicycles, or any of the other
groups for that matter, is beyond me.

Followups to alt.tv.barney.

jim frost
jimf@world.std.com
-- 
http://www.std.com/homepages/jimf
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjimf cudfnjim cudlnfrost cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
Date: 11 May 1995 03:07:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: my suggestion that the three-phase AC power driving the Griggs
: device might induce noise in the instruments employed to make the
: measurements

We do have a general problem with the "noise" line of attack in that
the hot-water versus steam production modes result in different
rates of anomalous heat production.

In both hot-water and steam modes, the input power is roughly of
the same order (has been both greater and lesser in some hot-water
cases than steam cases) and so the electrical noise ought to be
roughly equivalent and thus show roughly the same amount of 
anomalous heat.  The main difference in hot-water versus steam
production is that the fresh water flow rate is faster in the
hot-water case which, in effect, keeps the max temperature lower.

So since anomalous heat seems to scale with operating temperature
given similar mechanical input powers, we would have to conclude
(on this limited evidence) that anomalous heat does not track the
amount of electrical noise.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 /   /  ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: robertmc5@aol.com (ROBERTMC5)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 11 May 1995 01:59:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

          

                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
                          
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe ) 

               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the 
          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O 
          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as 
          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis 
          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the 
          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and 
          Christopher Bird, 1973: 

               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same 
                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]

               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight 
                   and number.

               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper 
                   for three or four weeks.

               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.

               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for 
                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the 
                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier 
                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen, 
                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]

          
               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our 
          own bodies. 
          
               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with 
          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED 
          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much 
          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).  
          
               Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
          organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen, 
          oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. 
          
               The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by micro-organisms, 
          cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building bricks, etc..  
          
               The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron, 
          creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators 
          and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones). 
          
               Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY! 
          

               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the 
          currently accepted "laws" of physics, (including the law 
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH 
          temperatures and pressures.) 
          

          Bibliography:
          
          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In 
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE, 
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY", 
          1st Edition, 
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of 
               Science, 
          1972, 
          163 Pages, Illustrated, 
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638, 
               Binghamton, NY  13902 
          
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS", 
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 
          1973, 
          402 Pages, 
          Harper & Row, 
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is 
               FASCINATING! ]
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books). 
          

               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, especially to COMPUTER 
          BULLETIN BOARDS. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrobertmc5 cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 11:36:05 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 9 May 1995, Richard Schultz wrote:

> 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
>

True, but all I wanted was to provide Mitch with a few references. He can
look them up himself, by the way, I don't think this effect is of much
interest in whatever context the question arose. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
     
Originally-From: awc@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
Date: 11 May 1995 13:40:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I finally found that paper I knew I had somewhere on synchrotron
radiation. The ref. is "Synchrotron Radiation Loss from Hot Plasma",
S.Tamor, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A271
(1988) 37-40. Does anybody know this guy? For a paper this well
written, I'm surprised to see that the author's address is a P.O.Box
in La Jolla. The biggest problem is that the units are Tesla for B,
keV for T, and cm for lengths. In fact, I think there is an
inconsistency in the units somewhere, but I haven't tracked it down
yet. Presumably the functional dependencies are all correct.

Both Bob Heeter and John Cobb mentioned a power loss due to
synchrotron radiation proportional to nTB^2. Specifically, the
characteristic loss time is 2.5 sec / B^2. This would be bad news,
except that the characteristic absorption length is
   lambda0 = 1.7e12 * B / n
which is the order of mm if you are anywhere near tokamak parameters.

Since the vacuum formulas are overly pessimistic, what is the result
for a homogeneous but finite plasma? Well, I'll tell you:
   P      = P0 Phi
   P0     = 0.39 n B^2 T
   Phi    = 0.005 T^1.5 lambda^-0.5
   lambda = 6e-13 n L B^-1 (1-R)^-1
P0 is the vacuum emission per unit volume and Phi is a transparency
factor. lambda is an optical thickness parameter, L is a
characteristic dimension (thickness of slab or radius of cylinder?),
and R is the reflectivity of the walls. It appears that this formula
gives a reasonable estimate also for an inhomogeneous plasma, at least
good enough for the purposes of s.p.f.

As to reflectors, Tamor concludes: "... while reflectors do decrease
the total loss, they are relatively ineffective for the core region
that counts the most."

Finally, if the explicit B dependence is removed by assuming pressure
balance, the ratio of synchrotron to bremsstrahlung power can be
written as
   Psyn/Pbrems = 0.3 T^13/4 n*^1/4 ((1-beta)/beta)^5/4
   n* = n (L/(1-R))^2 Z^4 (1+beta_i/beta_e)^5
The author concludes that the only route to really reducing
synchrotron radiation is to reduce the field in the plasma with a very
high beta (almost unity) or a cusp configuration.

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

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
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: Thu, 11 May 1995 13:50:54 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3or974$8so@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>In article <3oefp8$fml@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan  
>Wallace) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>That's a pretty good summary of current physics and cosmology.  I would
>disagree with the untested, though; the universe exists, these theories
>explain it pretty well and are getting better.  It's doubtful if it will
>ever be possible to create a universe in the lab to give these theories
>a test in the true sense.
>
>> 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! 
>
>What do you mean?  The Aspect experiment which confirms bizarre pathological
>mystic quantum mechanical predictions was carried out in the solar system.
>
>Bell showed using reasoning based on elementary set theory, i.e. logic,
>that any theory that is non-bizarre (assigns objective independent
>existence to particles), is non-pathological (does not contain connections,
>correlations at a distance that seem to operate faster than light), and
>non-mystic (observations independent of conscious observers), must
>predict experimental outcomes that differ from quantum mechanics.
>Aspect's experiment confirms that quantum mechanics makes the correct
>predictions, and that the non-bizarre/pathological/mystic theories fail.
>
>Nothing politically correct or incorrect about the outcomes of experiment
>or of reasoning based on elementary set theory.
>
>Tom Clarke

Now there's a bunch of gobble-de-gook. 

Merely confirms Bryan's position.


V.V.     The Ugly Duckling
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
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: 11 May 1995 11:57:26 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu) wrote:
: In article <3oefp8$fml@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan  
: Wallace) writes:

: >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.

: That's a pretty good summary of current physics and cosmology.  I would
: disagree with the untested, though; the universe exists, these theories
: explain it pretty well and are getting better.  It's doubtful if it will
: ever be possible to create a universe in the lab to give these theories
: a test in the true sense.

: > 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! 

: What do you mean?  The Aspect experiment which confirms bizarre pathological
: mystic quantum mechanical predictions was carried out in the solar system.

: Bell showed using reasoning based on elementary set theory, i.e. logic,
: that any theory that is non-bizarre (assigns objective independent
: existence to particles), is non-pathological (does not contain connections,
: correlations at a distance that seem to operate faster than light), and
: non-mystic (observations independent of conscious observers), must
: predict experimental outcomes that differ from quantum mechanics.
: Aspect's experiment confirms that quantum mechanics makes the correct
: predictions, and that the non-bizarre/pathological/mystic theories fail.

: Nothing politically correct or incorrect about the outcomes of experiment
: or of reasoning based on elementary set theory.

: Tom Clarke

Tom,

   Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with 
regard to light.  To date my 1969 Venus radar paper is the only published 
objective comparative analysis of the data regarding both models.  I was 
forced to use the sparse published 1961 Venus radar data and as my book 
shows, I was never able to get a more complete set of data from Shapiro 
or anyone else.  The early data was reported to be accurate to around 1.5 
km while the current one way signal transit time data from orbiting 
spacecraft is reported to be accurate to around 1.5 m and the velocities 
involved are much higher and in the case of the Venus Magellan graft have 
periods of around 90 min. as opposed to 24 hrs.  In the case of the 
early radar data the differences in the 2 theories was around 200 km 
while in the case of the Magellan craft it would be about 3500 km.  The 
wrong model would show the craft to be in an impossible elliptical orbit 
while the correct one would show it in its proper nearly circular orbit 
as determined by its surface radar data.  The one way signal transit 
times would also make it possible to determine the Earth's motion through 
the solid vacuum/space/ether if it existed.  I have a simple test to 
determine if a physicist is a legitimate scientist.  If they call for NASA 
to make a complete objective analysis with regard to both models, I 
consider them to be true scientists.  If they don't they are  
pathological scientists or politicians.  Until this test is done, modern 
physics will remain a farce and does not deserve to be funded by the 
Federal Government!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Mark North /  Rockwell Helium Mass Spectrometer
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rockwell Helium Mass Spectrometer
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 15:33:08 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA


I have scanned three VU graphs which give a partial description
of the Rockwell Helium mass spectrometer. The first VU graph
is all text and is reproduced below. The other two are schematics
of the mass spec system.

These are in gif format and may be obtained by anonymous ftp from
watop.nosc.mil [128.49.17.71]:

cd pub
binary
prompt
mget ms*.gif

Mark


begin VU graph---

HELIUM MASS SPECTROMETER SYSTEM
 ----------------------------------------------------------

THE HELIUM MASS SPECTROMETER SYSTEM AT ROCKETDYNE IS A
UNIQUE U.S. GOVERNMENT OWNED CERTRALIZED FACILITY DEDI-
CATED T0 LOW-LEVEL HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN SOLIDS AND
SELECTED LIQUIDS

  - PERMANENT MAGNET INSTRUMENT (2 IN. RADIUS, 60 DEGREE
    DEFLECTION, [delta]M/M ~ 1/100) OPERATING IN STATIC MODE

  - MULTIPLE GETTERS TO REMOVE HYDROGEN ISOTOPES AND
    ACTIVE GASES

  - ON-LINE MULTIPLE HELIUM "SPIKING" SYSTEMS FOR
    ISOTOPE DILUTION ANALYSIS

  - DYNAMIC RANGE FROM PERCENT LEVELS TO 10[e-12] ATOM
    FRACTION (PARTS PER-TRILLION)

  - CAN ANALYZE SOLID SAMPLES FROM MICROGRAMS TO GRAMS

  - 1% ABSOLUTE ACCURACY OVER MOST OF MEASUREMENT RANGE

  - CAN ACCURATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE TRITIUM IN
    SOLIDS OR LIQUIDS BY MEASUREMENT OF DECAY PRODUCT, 3He

     - INDEPENDENT METHOD FROM NUCLEAR MEASUREMENTS

end VU graph---
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.10 / Mark North /  Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 23:18:17 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:

>Now, while I'm at it, what was all this for anyway? I've forgotten. It was
>not, I trust, in line with another attempt to find a conventional
>explanation for XS heat, was it? By dissociation of PdD into Pd and D2,
>perhaps? We are not sure whether this would be exo- or endothermic (this
>has been discussed here) but we ARE sure that the heat would be piddling
>compared with XS heats claimed by the bolder CNF claimants. Lest I appear to
>sound like a CNF TB, let me add that I don't think the answer lies in 27
>different hitherto unknown nuclear or other exotic effects, either.

The formation of PdHx and presumably PdDx
is apparently an endothermic process. I quote
from Cam Satterthwaite in Physics Today, Nov.
1978. The article is entitled "Hydrogen in metals".

  "Hydrogen forms ionic hydrides by re-
action with all of the alkali and alkaline-
earth metals. It reacts exothermically to
form metallic, semimetallic and semi-
conducting hydrides with the transition
metals in Groups III, IV and V as well as
with the rare-earth metals and the actin-
de metals; see the periodic table in figure
1. On the other hand, the transition
metals in Groups VI, VII and VIII react
endothermically and generally do not
form stable hydrides. The most notable
exception is palladium; the alloy PdHx
probably has been studied longer and
more extensively than any other hy-
dride."

This article contains many references
on this system. Also, a library search through
physics abstracts keying on Satterthwaite, C.B.
[and] (hydrogen [or] hydride[?]) will get
you more than you want to know.

Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Chris Kostanick /  Compressing Deuterated Pd
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Compressing Deuterated Pd
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 16:58:25 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

Maybe I've been reading too much Tom Clancy, but I've gotten to
wondering what would happen under two different scenarios:

(1) Take Pd with as much D in it as will fit and put it into a 
    diamond anvil. Take it up to metallic hydrogen pressure
    (~ 3 Megabars?) and watch for neutrons.

(2) Set up the same sort of explosive lenses as are used for detonation
    of a Pu fission weapon. Replace the Pu with Pd mit D and let fly.
    Watch for neutrons.

The question I'm trying to decide by this is something like:

If "special nature of matter" really applies in Pd, then it should
make things that cause conventional fusion work at lower
pressures/tempretures.

Any guesses?

Chris Kostanick
--
Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
Date: 11 May 1995 17:35:24 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3opm07$pmd@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> 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.
> 

According to Reif, it seems gases never increase in T during
a free expansion (ideal gases have const T, van der waals gases
cool). So, free expansion is somewhat different than throttling.(?)




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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.11 / A Plutonium /  Nude Scientist, 22Apr95,page 18, Marcus Chumping-at-the-bit
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Nude Scientist, 22Apr95,page 18, Marcus Chumping-at-the-bit
Date: 11 May 1995 18:19:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  Often it is easier to predict human reaction to new revolutionary
physics, then ever it is to guess and predict how the body physics will
progress into the future.

  The topic at hand is the young universe (see Wendy Freedman's team
report) and older stars. The universe is 8 bill years old but it
contains 16 bill year old stars. Why? Because the observable universe
is the spaces of the 93rd and 94th electron of 231PU. Electrons in
orbits share orbitals. The old stars are mass of the 93rd electron. The
young universe was the spontaneous fission of NP Atom Totality to give
us our present PU Atom Totality Whole, and it occurred 8 bill years
ago.

  Let me reword some of this Nude Scientist report of 22Apr. Science
reporting is biased in order to keep the fat-salaried-cats into their
editorship and to sell millions of dollars worth of con-artist books on
science. Science reporting whenever there is a conflict between making
money and reporting the truth, those magazines always abide with the
money grubbing. See the habits of Manure (Nature) with John Maddox over
cold fusion reporting. In my opinion, if ever there was a Hitler of
science reporting it is John Maddox. Maddox printed that he would write
the obituary of cold fusion. Imagine that? And he is still at the helm
of Nature magazine. Who is Maddox's boss? And, who are the ten largest
advertisers in Nature? Is Glaxo-Wellcome one of them?

That article with my commentary in parantheses---

  LAST October, (why do news articles start with the first letters all
capitalized?)  the Hubble Space Telescope threw up a puzzle. Its
measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe showed the Universe
to be younger than its oldest stars, which is plainly impossible (Nude
Scientist, Seance 29 Octoberfest 1994). ( Impossible only to convoluted
thinkers. Michelson never believed his own experiments that no ether
existed. His own experiment which proved the ether was just a flight of
imagination was not strong enough to convince even Michelson. And we
see the same human character traits happening here with younger
universe than its oldest stars. In an Atom Totality Whole, this theory
predicts that its oldest stars (16 bill years old) are older than its
other occupied orbital electron of the 94th electron. But Nude
Scientist and Manure want to fleece the general public of more money.
They have to push the warehouses full of books preaching the Big Bang
Baloney. And of course, Stephen Hawking must have his cut of that
con-artistry, that humanitarian right to fleece the general public with
his chimpdoggery theories.)

Continuing with Nude Scientist. . . The  most popular explanation of
this anomaly was that something must be wrong with the estimate of the
Universe's age, which is based on the standard model of the big bang.
Now, however, Elastomers from the US and Britain suggest that there
might be something wrong with our estimates of the ages of the oldest
stars. ( Funny, really funny, how before Freedman made her report the
books in astronomy, virtually all, were touting the age of the oldest
stars as FACTS, prima , unero numero facts, hard and cold beyond a
doubt facts.  Funny how science is politics whenever something
upsetting comes into "sciences way". Before Freedman, the age of stars
was fact, and now it is merely estimates. Why? Oh why could not these
money fleecing science magazines with their money grub con artist
scientists ever say their age of stars was an ESTIMATE all along, and
say that their Big Bang theory is highly SPECULATIVE all along? But no,
no, no  those words of estimates or Speculative do not sell books, or
allow Manure to print Big Bang as if it was a foregone conclusion into
everyone of its issues for the past 20 or 30 years.)

Continuing with report. . . A team led by Ted von Hippel of the
National Optical Avian Observatories in Tucson, Arizona, and Gerry
Gilmore (any relation to the Utah Gilmore? Just a question.) of the
University of Cambridge has used an accurate new, bla ,  bla  ,  bla  .
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 12 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
