1995.05.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 04:50:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3q3hma$ar0@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>: ... but how do you rule out that the PLASMAK could compress into
>: a pancake, or more likely, a hot dog shape (wrapped into a toroidal 
>: form, of course)?
>
>Well, let me ask back, why would atmospheric pressure just happen to
>be the magical pressure at which a spherical shape comes into being?
>(aka ball lightning.)
>
>Smaller BL's ought to be more oblate/prolate if there is a relationship 
>between shape, electro-magnetic energy storage magnitude, and (fixed)
>atmospheric pressure.
>
>Is there a difference in shape between small and large BL's?  Ought
>this not indicate things to come at higher pressures?

There is a fair amount of evidence for the generation of ball lightnings
within high pressure dust vents that are associated with volcanoes
and also generate a significant amount of localized atmospheric electricity
around the vents, which is probably due to triboelectrostatic charging.  

In fact some of the largest balls and longest lived balls, ever formed
and observed, have been generated by this mechanism.  Diameters of 
several meters (after expansion to ambient [near STP] conditions is 
made)  have been observed and these have had lifetimes, at least in 
one case of two hours.  

Also, I have theorized that such structures are formed sub surface 
within the sun and "bubble" to the surface expansion cooling as they
go.  Such trips could take years; and the instability which breaks them
up is related to the pressure difference over their surface.  This 
naturally occurs within the photosphere and it is due to the change 
in the rate of change of pressure with change in depth in the region 
which is close to the surface.   The adiabatic cooling accounts for 
the observation of regions where blackish remnants of the still 
highly magnetized Kernel plasma are seen in due to upwelling.  Such 
sitings are codified as sun spots.  They are also involved in a
hypothesis that relates to the sun's total fusion burn levels.  

As long as compressions of PMKs are applied uniformly, that is where 
large delta P excursions in pressure are applied isobarically over 
the entire external surface of a PMK, then they should remain stable
over the whole compression.  

>--
> - 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    -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 06:01:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3q3bq8$fdm@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>PMK, I know last week you defended the stability 
>of your desired spherical form with the
>superball analogy---i.e. if you poke inward on the 
>surface, the system internal energy goes up and resists
>the poke.

>However, how do you know that you can stably achieve 
>a spherical compression? The enormous heating you
>anticipate depends on uniform compression in all
>three dimensions---but how do you rule out that 
>the PLASMAK could compress into a pancake, or more

The toroidal field has a net major radial compression and
the poloidal field encicles it.  The pressence of highly conducting
currents prevents their reconnection, so pancaking must raise
the energy density (mag field density and theirfore the pressure
which counteracts the pancaking.   Here we assume the
pancaking to take place axisymmetircally in the equatorial plane.   
I'm not too satisfied with this hand waver, but it will have to
do for your flap jack.  

>likely, a hot dog shape (wrapped into a toroidal 
>form, of course)? So, you may get compression in

Huh?? you don't mean to say a ring baloney??  Great.  Just when
I was trying to dignify this critter.  Shucks.   

Well, I don't quite follow, except that applying pressure isobarically
at the surface produces inward pressure around the equator of
P(i) as well as everywhere else over its surface.  But the pressure
at the equator is transmitted through field and plasma field of
the Kernel to the vertical field encircled bye the Kernel plasma ring,
so we KNOW it will require at least an atmosphere or more to  EXPAND
such a field radially outward from the central axis of symmetry.  
However, the toroidal field acting on its generating poloidal plasma 
currents in the Kernel Plasma ring develop a net inward force in
the major radial direction, and this force adds too the force of
the external compression pressure   P(i).  Therefore the energy 
or binding pressure compression the vertical field lines within the
region of the hole of the plasma ring can not be displace outward
by a force less than OR EQUAL TO THE PRESSURE P(i).  P(i) acting at
the cusps or poles can not penetrate internally sufficiently to
"split the bounded vertical field and therefore form a boloney
ring with "a blanket gas hole",  --  Not even a fat chubby one.   

So, you should be able to reduce these arguments to an acceptable
form in symbolic math, and indeed, perhaps run a number or two.   

>only 1 or 2 dimensions and so never reach the 

We fully intend to compress in one dimension, only because
this gives the plasmoid net motion or displacement velocity 
which will be designed to position it in various apparatus for
pre fusion compression conditioning (if necessary.  

>enormous compression ratios you desire before the
>plasma dissipates the heating (by radiation, collisons
>or turbulent transport).

By compressing using a mechanically driven fluid compression,
for example. 

>It seems like, if anything, your plasmak's would tend to pinch
>as free plasmas are wont to do, and that sort of tendency would
>defeat you.

The Kernel plasma undergoes a toroidal pinch.  So??  The whole
system is compressing self similarly, and the Kernel has 
toroidal field to resist kinking, and shear to resist ballooning.. 
so  what's you want??  All of this stuff intensifies with compression. 
It's such a cheap trick to generate and compress, perhaps it's worth 
the money for a few shots.   So Give!  well ya?  Let's put out a 
little.   Come on a little doesn't hurt.           :-)

>Also, aside from the issue of how the shape deforms as it
>compresses, what form of adiabatic compression do you expect to
>get, i..e. for

>p V^gamma = constant

I don't think so.  
Energy goes as c
P(external) goes as the compression ratio c to the fifth
P =~ c^5	Pressure
E =~ c^1 	Energy 
V =~ c^-3	Volume 
B =? c^1	Beta

So what is the particle transport??  probably negligible.  
so B =~ c^1    if not then 

B =  B(init)   (remains constant)   Alcator scaling?

>what gamma do you expect?

Your guess may be better than mine.  

So that's why we must do measurements, My guess isn't reliable enough
for me.  But then yours is in the same category.   Otherwise we could
charge ahead  -- even though with either result, we can reach fusion 
conditions.   It always helps to know what compression pressure profile 
to use and what level of reserve we may need.   
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: operating spheromaks
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: operating spheromaks
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 06:33:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

>I am looking for information on the spheromaks in the world that are
>currently in operation.  Is a spheromak the same as a low-aspect ratio
>tokamak?  I know of only two so-called low-aspect ratio tokamaks: START in
>the UK (at JET I believe), and MEDUSA at the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 
>Does anyone know of any others?  Or of any distinguishing characteristics 
>that would make a spheromak different from a low-aspect ratio tokamak?

A tokamak is a current-mode-1 toroidal device, while a Spheromak is a 
current-mode-2 device.  Stellarators had essentially no plasma current
or self generated field and are current-mode-0.  Tokamaks have one
toroidal current giving rise to a confining poloidal (azimuthal if it
were a linear discharge) field.  The spheromak has both poloidal and
toroidal currents within the plasma and they are distributed so that
these currents are quite parallel to the field they generate within
the volume the current bearing plasma.  This is the so called Taylor 
condition.    There is a current-mode-3 topology which is the PLASMAK(tm)
magnetoplasmoid.  It is a sort of an all-plasma-current-embodiment of 
the spheromak and contains ALL of currents and fields necessary for 
complete confinement and stability.  The third current flows in a 
blanket gas supported gas shell which maintains conductance by virtue 
of energy currents formed during initial excitation.  

I have a bunch of stuff accumulated over the last year which follows 
and discusses activity relating to spheromaks in some way. Mostly, 
there are Names, and Types of activities via work as expressed in papers 
and conferences.  You can contact authors individually.   

|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|           PHYSICS OF SPHERICAL CONTINUOUS INERTIAL FUSION WORKSHOP
|The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute
|(EPRI) are organizing a workshop to assess the physics basis of spherically
|convergent continuous fusion systems.  These systems include Inertial
|Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) and systems combining electrostatic and
|magnetic confinement, such as the Polywell=81 or Penning Trap concepts.  The
|goal of this workshop is to collect relevant theoretical and experimental
|physics work addressing issues.
|
|The organizing committee,
|	Dan Barnes - Los Alamos
|	Tom Schneider - EPRI
|	Ron Blanken - DOE/Office of Fusion Energy
|	Nick Krall - Krall Associates
|	Gerry Kulcinski - University of Wisconsin
|	George Miley - University of Illinois
|	Bill Nevins - Lawrence Livermore
|
|is planning a two day program of invited presentations focusing on generic
|and concept specific issues.  A list of topics is enclosed.  The program
|also includes extended time for discussion and for accommodating
|contributed papers.  If you would like to contribute a paper, please return
|the following registration form as soon as practical.  You may respond
|electronically to FAX number (505) 665-7150 or via internet to
|dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  The final day of the
|workshop (Saturday morning, January 14) is reserved for discussions of
|applications (neutron source, space power, transmutations, fusion energy,
|etc.) and proposed next steps to resolve physics issues.
|
|The organizing committee will prepare a concise summary of the workshop
|which will be a consensus view of the major physics issues, the status of
|these issues (theoretically and experimentally), and next steps toward
|developing these systems toward near term and long term applications.  This
|summary will be published in Fusion Technology.  The proceedings of the
|workshop, including this summary will be published as a Los Alamos report.
|Speakers are requested to provide a four page extended synopsis of their
|presentation by January 31, 1995, for these proceedings.
|
|Please let us know if you will be participating and whether you wish to
|make a presentation.  An agenda will be sent to you in a few days.  If you
|are able to let us know, by electronic (FAX or internet) means, we will
|send further information by these means.  We look forward to an exciting
|and productive workshop.
|
|TOPICS:
|
|*  Generic Issues
|   -   Limits on convergence
|         Source
|         Asphericity
|         Coulomb scattering
|   -   Power balance
|         Ion energy scattering
|         Electron scattering and energy confinement
|   -   Waves and instabilities
|   -   Computer modeling
|   -   Scaling expectations
|   -   Direct conversion issues
|
|*  Specific Issues
|   -   Gridded systems
|         Grid losses of ions and electrons
|         Experimental results (scaling, profiles)
|   -   Poly wells
|   -   Magnetic geometry and MHD
|         Electron losses (cusp, cross field)
|         Experimental results
|   -   Penning Traps
|         Spherical Symmetry
|         Electron losses
|         Experimental results
|
|*  Furture directions
|
|The Physics of Spherical Continuous Inertial Fusion Workshop is scheduled
|for January 12--14, 1995, at the Eldorado Hotel, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
|Technical information may be obtained by contacting Dan Barnes,
|505-667-4394 (phone) or 505-665-7150 (fax) or via internet at
|dbarnes@penning.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  Lenora Alsbrook,
|Protocol Office Conference Coordinator, will assist with logistics and can
|be contacted at 505-667-8449 (phone) or 505-667-7530 (fax).
|Los Alamos National Labortory
|Protocol Office, MS P366
|Attention:  BUS-1 Conference Accountant
|Los Alamos, NM 87545
|Phone:  505-667-6774  -  Fax:  505-667-7530
|(Lenora Alsbrook)
|June D. Garcia
|Group T-15
|Los Alamos National Laboratory
|june@ctrss2.lanl.gov
|505-667-4394
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|
|The 6th international Toki Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
|Nuclear Fusion was held 11/29-12/2/94 at Toki city, Japan on the topic,
|RESEARCH FOR ADVANCED CONCEPTS IN MAGNETIC FUSION.  The conference was 
|attended by 240 participants from more than a dozen countries, including
|16 from the US, 11 from Russia and FSU countries, and 14 from the European 
|community.  There were 121 presentations (36 oral).  This was by far the 
|largest Toki conference yet, indicating a strong interest, worldwide, in 
|advanced concepts.
|        Summary comments by M. Fujiwara (conference chairman) with his 
|viewson the key issues for several alternate concepts.  His summary slide:
|	HELICAL SYSTEMS:  (1) transport studies in low collisionality (nu-
|star = 10^-3 or 10^-4;  (2) H mode should be developed up to H=2;  
|(3) steady-state operation in LHD,W7X.
|	LOW ASPECT-RATIO TOKAMAK:  (1) almost all of its characteristics 
|are attractive except for easy continuation to a tokamak type reactor;  
|(2) important physics studies are possible, and may contribute to key 
|physics of other concepts.
|	RFP:  (1) confinement studies on magnetic fluctuations and 
|confinement improvement should be demonstrated by current profile control;  
|(2) self-organization physics and dynamo mechanism.
|	FRC:  (1) efficient and slow build-up of plasmas, and long pulse;  
|(2) realize large s number plasmas, and establish the confinement scaling 
|to predict the feasibility of DHe3 reactor plasmas.
|	MIRRORS:  (1) can the concepts be maintained in high dense plasmas 
|relevant to fusion plasmas, e.g. will the tandem potential possible at 
|10^13 - 10^14 cm^-3;  (2) the possibility of DHe3 plasma confinement.
|	COMMON PHYSICS OF ALTERNATE CONCEPTS -- several areas of important 
|progress were discussed:  (1) self-organization mechanism and transport;  
|(2) H-mode physics in stellarator/tokamaks/mirrors;  (3) self-sustained 
|turbulence and transport model;  (4) magnetic reconnection physics 
|covering various configurations.
|	For further information contact S. Sudo (conference secretary), 
|sudo@dgsss.nifs.ac.jp
|                                -----Submitted by Loren Steinhauer, 1/9/95
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|Announcement:
|	     US-JAPAN WORKSHOP ON COMPACT TOROID PHYSICS AND 
|      	   APPLICATIONS TO TOKAMAK REFUELING AND CURRENT DRIVE
|			Seattle, 13-15 March 1995
|
|     The workshop focusses on compact toroids physics, technology, and 
|applications.  The tentative workshop organization is as follows:
|     Monday 13 March	 AM  FRC experiments
|			 PM  FRC theory
|			     spheromaks
|     Tuesday 14 March    AM  compact toroid applications--fueling
|			     compact toroid applications--technology
|			 PM  laboratory tours
|     Wednesday 15 March  AM  concepts and future plans
|So far approximately 20 presentations are tentatively included in the 
|schedule.  If you are interested in attending and making a presentation, 
|contact Loren Steinhauer, (206) 881-9380;  fax (206) 881-7547;  email:
|Steinhauer@AA.Washington.edu
|     The conference hotel is the Residence Inn by Marriott / Lake Union.
|Make hotel reservations at (206) 624-6000.  The deadline for booking a 
|hotel room at the conference rate ($120/suite, $130/studio-lakeside) is
|20 February.  The conference registration fee is $50 ($20 grad students) 
|and includes a banquet.
|		--submitted by Loren Steinhauer
|
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|Submitted by:  Loren Steinhauer
|
|The US-Japan Workshop, "Physics of D-3He Fusion" was held 5-7 December 1994
|in Nagoya.  It included 22 presentations.  The 35 participants at the 
|workshop included five from the US and five from Russia.
|	Five speakers gave recent results from FRC experiments [Osaka Un., 
|Nihon Un., Tokyo Un., TRINITI (Troitsk), Un. Washington].  These talks
|emphasized control of the FRC start-up and equilibrium.  The possibility of 
|alternative start-up procedures, especially spheromak merging, were 
|highlighted.  The prospects for D3He were discussed with respect to FRCs, 
|spherical tokamaks, and inertial electrostatic confinement.  Plans for 
|the test of the travelling wave direct energy convertor, was presented by 
|Y. Yasaka (Kyoto Un.):  the experiment, which will begin operations this 
|spring, will be the first test of a technology unique to advanced fuel 
|systems.  New current-drive ideas relevant to D3He systems were presented:  
|rotating magnetic field current drive, A. Hoffman (Un. Washington) and
|M. Ohnishi (Kyoto Un.); and passive current drive by fishscale walls, W.
|Kernbichler (Graz Un.).
|	For information on these and other presentations, contact 
|Y. Tomita at...  Tomita@NIFSbbs.NIFS.ac.Jp
|
|        ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY COMMUNITY at SHERWOOD / LAKE TAHOE
|
|At the Sherwood Conference there will be a meeting of the alternate 
|concepts theory community:
|
|	Time:  5 - 6 pm  
|	Date:  Monday,  3 April
|	Room:  Tamarack-C  (pool level, Sierra Conference Center)
|
|The meeting will feature discussions on how to promote Alternate Concepts 
|theory.  Ron McKnight, Walter Sadowski, and Mike Crisp will represent the 
|OFE perspective.
|	Address questions to Loren Steinhauer, University of Washington,
|(206) 881-9380;  fax -7547;  internet:  Steinhauer@AA.Washington.edu
|
|From: ACTHEORY@AA.WASHINGTON.EDU
|Subject: US-Japan workshop summary
|Sender: ACTHEORY@CTR.AA.WASHINGTON.EDU
|To: Baldwin3@LLNL.gov, CBarnes@LANL.gov, DBarnes@Penning.LANL.gov,
|        Batchelor@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.gov, Beckstead@toka.ireq-ccfm.hydro.qc.ca,
|        PMB@iago.Caltech.edu, berk@hagar.ph.utexas.edu,
|        amitava@iowa.physics.uiowa.edu, AHB17@Columbia.edu,
|        Braams@cims.nyu.edu, JUB@LANL.gov, Brooks@AA.Washington.edu,
|        MBrown3@cc.Swarthmore.edu, 76234.3303@compuserve.com,
|        emg@fusion.ph.utexas.edu, Cary@Boulder.Colorado.edu,
|        chapman@juno.physics.wisc.edu, cheeseman@pluto.arc.nasa.gov,
|        Choi@ecn.Purdue.edu, chum@gav.gat.com, cobbjw@ornl.gov,
|        collerain@gav.gat.com, David.Crandall@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        Crawford@AA.Washington.edu, Michael.Crisp@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov,
|        benjamin.cross@srs.gov, dawson@physics.ucla.edu,
|        72570.707@compuserve.com, tjd@inel.gov, Dory@FEDC06.Fed.ORNL.gov,
|        William.Dove@mailgw.ER.DOE.gov, drake1@llnl.gov, Gepstein@ota.gov,
|        AF@LLNL.gov, mGoeckner@PPPL.gov, June@CTRss2.LANL.gov,
|        Gulick@FRL.physics.McGill.CA, hammer2@llnl.gov,
|        Hanson@Physics.Auburn.edu, Hewett@kristen.LLNL.gov,
|        Jarboe@AA.Washington.edu, JLJ@theory.PPPL.gov
|Message-Id: <15419FB3765A600B1C@CTR.AA.WASHINGTON.EDU>
|X-Envelope-To: pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu
|>
|       %%%%%%%%%   ALTERNATE CONCEPTS THEORY -- NEWSLINE   %%%%%%%%%
|     The US-Japan workshop "Compact Toroid Physics and Applications to 
|Tokamak Fueling and Current Drive" was held in Seattle, 13-15 March 1995.  
|It was attended by 38 persons including a Japanese delegation of eight, 
|and one from Canada.  
|     The workshop addressed three key issues:  (1) How to form and sustain 
|compact toroids (CT); (2) Practical aspects of fueling and current drive 
|plus alternate applications of CTs; and (3) Where to go from here, what 
|do we know, what do we need to know, and how much will it cost.  An 
|abstract booklet of the 24 formal presentations was compiled and is 
|available upon request.  If you are interested in getting a copy of the 
|slides from any one presentation, then contact that speaker directly.  The 
|following is a list of the 24 formal presentations.
|
|EXPERIMENTS
|T. TAKAHASHI (Nihon Un.), Translation experiment of an FRC plasma in NUCTE-3
|A.L. HOFFMAN (Un. Washington), From TRX to LSX/mod.
|M. KATSURAI (Tokyo Un.), Experimental studies on MHD dynamics of CTs and 
|   compact tokamaks in the TS-3 device.
|J.B. GREENLY, (Cornell Un.), Design of the Cornell FIREX:  field-reversed  
|   ion ring experiment.
|A. MARTIN (Un. Washington), Formation and sustainment of a low-aspect ratio 
|   tokamak using coaxial helicity injection.
|R. BROWN (Swarthmore Coll.), Two gun spheromak experiments at Swarthmore.
|
|COMPACT TOROID PHYSICS
|S. GOTO (Osaka Un.), Flow pattern of scraped-off plasma from FRC.
|M. OKUBO (Osaka Un.), Measurements of end-loss ion energy and estimation of 
|   convective energy loss from FRC.
|A. ISHIDA (Niigata Un.), Stability of FRCs.
|S. OHI (Osaka Un.), FRC plasma heating by axial injection of pusled intense 
|   ion beam.
|E.A. CRAWFORD, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities in FRC radial dynamics.
|L.C. STEINHAUER (Un. Washington), High-beta minimum energy states.
|
|PLASMOID INJECTION PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY
|T. UYAMA (Himeji Inst. Technol.), CT injection and helicity injection 
|   experiments in HIT.
|R. RAMAN (Varennes), Non-disruptive fueling of a tokamak by CT injection.
|P.M. BELLAN (Caltech), High velocity compact torus injector for the TEXT 
|   tokamak.
|R.E. PETERKIN (Phillips Lab.), How to drive a CT to high density and high 
|   speed.
|J.C. THOMAS (Titan-PSI), Technology of high repetition rate compact toroid 
|   guns.
|S. GOTO (Osaka Un.), New approach of FRC translation techniques for pasma 
|   movement and energy input.
|
|CURRENT DRIVE AND ALTERNATE APPLICATIONS
|M. OHNISHI (Kyoto Un.), Steady equilibrium of FRC with rotating magnetic 
|   field.
|B.A. NELSON (Un. Washington), Helicity injection in tokamaks and spheromaks
|G.F. KIUTTU (Phillips Lab.), High-energy, high-Z CTs for x-ray conversion.
|
|CONCEPTS AND EXPERIMENT PLANS
|J.T. SLOUGH (Un. Washington), Possible FRC research on LSX/mod.
|C. BARNES (LANL), Plans for a hot sustained spheromak.
|L.J. PERKINS (LLNL), How well does the FRC pass the "reactor test"?
|
|Submitted by:  Loren C. Steinhauer  (steinhauer@aa.washington.edu)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks, and I look forward to any information you can pass on.

>James Danielson
>Dept. of Physics
>Univ. Calif. Irvine
>
>email: eapu523@ea.oac.uci.edu
>Thanks, and I look forward to any information you can pass on.
>James Danielson
>Dept. of Physics
>Univ. Calif. Irvine
>email: eapu523@ea.oac.uci.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <D9969y.5Gu@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <D9969y.5Gu@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 06:34:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
Date: Sun, 28 May 95 15:30:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) vies for Stupidest Comment of 1995 here:
 
     "The demo is robust -- *if* nobody is permitted to examine it too
     closely, for fear they should learn some of its deep, dark secrets. It
     is robust -- *if* any skeptic who reproduces it and gets different
     results can simply be written off as having insufficient expertise. . .
     . Translating into standard English, the demo is robust enough to
     survive any challenge -- so long as nobody is permitted to challenge it.
     . . ."
 
Snyder is talking about the Cravens experiment with the CETI device. This was
performed in front of more than 200 people during three days of an
international conference. Any person there was allowed to look at it, measure
the temperature, measure volts or amps or flow rate, examine a cell, take
apart a cell or video the experiment. Dozens of people did so. Morrison spent
at least 20 minutes talking one on one with Cravens; I have photos of him
doing that. Cravens had a notebook there containing copies of the NIST
certificates for his power supplies and instruments. He showed that to anyone
who asked. He had the test points clearly marked, so that anyone with a
voltmeter could see where to test the thing. He installed one of my Radio
Shack electronic thermometers (a thermistor) to check his thermistors.
 
In short, this experiment was subjected to the most intense, extended, public
scrutiny imaginable, for three days. The calorimetry was described in detail
during a 20 minute lecture on the morning of the first day of the conference.
A multipage list of technical details was produced and given to anyone who
asked. Before the conference, a neutral third party verified the effect, and
published an experiment in Mallove's magazine "Infinite Energy." Patents
describing the device and the cathode material have been publicly available
for years. Yet Snyder claims that nobody was permitted to examine it "too
closely." Here in this forum, people like Dick Blue tried to think up every
imaginable reason (plus several unimaginable non-reasons) to prove it was
wrong, yet Snyder claims that "nobody is permitted to challenge it."
 
Yes, I must nominate this comment for Stupidest of the Year. Snyder is up
against world class competition, including people like Morrison who are so
stupid they don't know the difference between palladium and nickel, and Droege
who does not recognize a dial thermometer when he sees one. But this comment
may just take the cake.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Sun, 28 May 95 22:04:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steven Piet <RXFN56A@prodigy.com> writes:
 
>The DOE labs collectively have produced a tremondous amount of good stuff 
>for this country.  The biggest problem is that private industry in the US 
 
They have not. After they build the atom bomb in 1945, the government
labs stagnated. They have contributed very little to industry. Several
years after they tried to "go civilian" the total annual income from the
DoE's patents was something like $15 or $20 million, which is an absurd
return on investment. If private industry spent billions, you can be darn
sure they would make back more than $20 million a year on it. Or if they
did not, the entire R&D department would be fired.
 
If we were to close the DoE down completely and give those billions back to
the taxpayers and corporations, I promise you they would find ways to use
the money that would pay back far more then $20 million per year.
 
Big government science is an idea that has been tried and it has failed.
Things like the Center for Disease Control work, but new physics? Never. You
end up with stuff like the SSC, oil shale, and hot fusion.
 
Government cooperation with industry is another matter entirely. We have a
tradition of that going back to the canals, the first steam ships, the
transcontinental railway, and in modern times highways, airports and the
Internet. That works! That is a proven plus, which has been part of the
U.S. system since colonial times. When industry takes the lead and industry
takes the risks, government can help.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Arthur TOK /  Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
Date: 29 May 1995 08:56:14 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <3q2ue6$1id@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:

> The key in my mind would be to have some way to self-generate all of the
> current needed for steady-state operation with using a transformer. This
> is one of the things you will here the ST advocates crow about. They
> have designs with "bootstrap current" ~80% and are very proud of it.
> However, when more and more details get put in to make a real device
> proposal, these numbers drop some.

I asked once and was told there is nothing magical about a bootstrap
fraction of 80% or even 100%. It sounded like you could just as well
design a tokamak to give you 120% bootstrap current and then use your
beams or rf to bring it back down. You want some external current
drive to allow you to play with profile control, and the most
efficient use of resources is to take this room away from 100%.

> ... Also, I put "bootstrap current"
> in quotations because it is another example of the mainline tokamak
> folks extending a bad use of terminology. Only part of the current is
> really bootstrap. A lot of it is actually diamagnetic current, especially
> for extremely low aspect-ratio devices. You don't get much diamagnetic current
> for low beta devices like TFTR, DIII-D, etc., so that term is often
> neglected.

Tokamaks are actually paramagnetic, not diamagnetic, that is, the
toroidal field within the plasma is *higher* than the toroidal field
at the same radius outside the plasma. I don't know if this is a good
thing (your TF coils don't need to work so hard) or not (more field
means less room for plasma pressure). I also don't know the
relationship between between toroidal and poloidal
dia-/paramagnetism. Does plasma pressure always drive a toroidal
current in the direction you want?

> If the self-generated + beam + RF current fraction was 100% (and
> you could get a startup scenario), then there would be no need for
> a center post.

I'll let you get rid of the central solenoid, but you'll still need a
center post for the inner legs of the TF coils.

> ... This is the physics challenge for ST's. So while
> current designs don't extrapolate well to reactors, the next two
> generations of ST experiments hold great promise in finding a way to
> reduce (or perhaps even eliminate) the need for the center post.

You mean, if we develop ST's far enough we'll learn how to solve the
problems of CT's. If it doesn't have a center post, it's not a tokamak
anymore.

-- 
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:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Bill Page /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: 29 May 1995 12:52:42 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <950523234018_10217022@aol.com>, Tstolper@aol.com says:
>
>Bill Page, 
>
>In your post dated May 18, 1995, carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion
>Digest No. 3712 of the same date, you said that you had been told that it is
>typical of moderated groups to experience a drop in traffic.
>
>Did your informants suggest any reasons why moderated groups tend to wilt on
>the vine?
>
>Tom Stolper
>

No. It is not clear why this happens. But I can think of a few possible
reasons:

1) Perhaps it says something about the motivations of those posting
   regularly to un-moderated news groups. In this environment it is
   possible to respond very quickly with short "quips" instead of
   expecting a delay and having second thoughts about one has said.

2) There is a strong tendency to believe that moderated groups are more
   "serious" than the un-moderated ones and if one posts there, one is
   more likely to be monitored by one's peers who will also take you
   seriously - and furthermore are likely to hold you to "it".

3) There may be a much smaller number of people reading the monitored
   group and so the audience is smaller. If people who post to
   news groups are like entertainers, than this is a big draw-back.

Ok. Now its your turn to guess.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / mitchell swartz /  Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 13:58:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3qcg2q$5nm@netfs.dnd.ca>wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Bill Page (wspage@ncs.dnd.ca) writes:


  > Tstolper@aol.com says:Bill Page, 
  >In your post dated May 18, 1995, carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's Fusion
  >Digest No. 3712 of the same date, you said that you had been told that it is
  >typical of moderated groups to experience a drop in traffic.
  >Did your informants suggest any reasons why moderated groups tend to wilt on
  >the vine?Tom Stolper
-No. It is not clear why this happens. But I can think of a few possible
-reasons:
-1) Perhaps it says something about the motivations of those posting
-   regularly to un-moderated news groups. In this environment it is
-   possible to respond very quickly with short "quips" instead of
-   expecting a delay and having second thoughts about one has said.--
-2) There is a strong tendency to believe that moderated groups are more
-   "serious" than the un-moderated ones and if one posts there, one is
-   more likely to be monitored by one's peers who will also take you
-   seriously - and furthermore are likely to hold you to "it".-
-3) There may be a much smaller number of people reading the monitored
-   group and so the audience is smaller. If people who post to
-   news groups are like entertainers, than this is a big draw-back.-
-Ok. Now its your turn to guess.

Tom, Bill:
  You also might add or consider
4) filtration of postings for whatever reason
5) boredom of moderator
6) boredom of readers
7) petrification of process
8) other
  best wishes
    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)






ored by one's peers who will also take you
   seriously - and furthermo9w9



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: 29 May 1995 15:26:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (wspage@ncs.dnd.ca) wrote:
: Tstolper@aol.com says:
: >reasons why moderated groups tend to wilt on the vine?

: It is not clear why this happens. But I can think of a few possible
: reasons:

I post a lot to s.p.f. but just once or twice total to the ICCF5 e-list
group.

The reason my behavior is different is because usenet groups in general
always represent a mix of knowledge levels among participants.  I don't
have to be a chemist or a physicist to ask or answer a question and I
don't have to feel that each thing I say must be guaranteed to be
correct.  I can make errors and other more advanced people will usually
note the error and post a correction. 

The narrower the focus of the forum, e-list or moderated newsgroup,
however, the more one feels compelled to verify the correctness of
his or her postings before dispatching them.

If someone asks a question, then I don't respond because I think others
of greater knowledge will do a better job, etc.

So there is a bigger psychological barrier to posting to such forums,
and since postings breed postings, such a forum can fail to acheive
a sustained "critical mass" and the exchanges can die off to very low
levels.

--
 - 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:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 12:01 -0500 (EST)

wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) writes:
 
-> Ok. Now its your turn to guess.
 
I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I know from experience that
with our Internet connection posting to a moderated group will often kill all
postings.  What seems to happen is that the posting gets queued by our provider
until all postings to the moderated groups get approved.  Then either of three
things can happen:  First the moderated groups can get approved and the
postings will then be done, although somewhat delayed; the moderated groups get
approved, but by the time the approval comes back, the posting has already been
deleted from the spooler; or one of the moderated groups is not approved, and
the posting is deleted, not getting posted to any of the newsgroups, including
the unmoderated ones.
 
for this reason I do not post to moderated groups.  I have found that in almost
all cases the postings never make it to any of the groups, even the unmoderated
ones if a moderated group is listed.
 
I may be misinterpretating exactly why this is, but I do know that this is what
happens when I try to post and any of the groups listed are moderated.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 /  Nicholas /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nicholas Hill")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 18:14:41 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

english@primenet.com says

> In the Vedic theory, God is the Unified Field made Self-Aware.

what is the vedic theory?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennhill cudlnNicholas cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / John Kondis /  Re: Condensed matter/solid state newsgroup.
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Condensed matter/solid state newsgroup.
Date: 29 May 95 18:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Jeez, did I screw up.  I set the "Reply-To" address incorrectly in the 
last post.  (Sorry.)  You can respond to THIS message and the reply will 
go to "physics-cfv-request@netagw.com".  Then, you will receive the CFV.

Again, sorry...
...John

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 /  hench@utia.cas /  Palladium Question
     
Originally-From: hench@utia.cas.cz ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium Question
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 15:04:51 +0000

A while back, Barry Merriman suggested that more effort in
Cold Fusion needs to be placed on finding a nuclear signature
in Cold Fusion experiments. In all of the discussion that
I've seen, which is about half due to the unreliability of
the news server here, people have concentrated on measuring
the increase of helium as the nuclear signature. If I remember
correctly, Barry suggested that a decrease in tritium
concentration in tritium-hydrogen CF experiments should be
investigated.

I have another suggestion. Is it feasible of running some of
the test set-ups with different isotopes of palladium?  If
the nuclear mechanism, for example, is the simulaneous capture
of two dueterons, and the helium is produced by a process of
alpha decay, then the isotopes of palladium would have an
important bearing on the process of cold fusion.

Now, I know that the hypothesis of simultaneous deuteron
capture is rather far-fetched; it would require some strange
tunneling effects that would be extremely surprizing if true.
I am just curious if anyone has run CF experiments with
different isotopes of palladium.

-- John

***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** Institute of Information Theory and Automation (UTIA) **
***********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhench cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Fionn Quinlan /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: fin@maths.tcd.ie (Fionn Quinlan)
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: 29 May 1995 20:31:50 +0100
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

The  universe is an atom thoery is not very new.I read a story by Asimov
or Heinlein about space explorers who went beyond the edge of the universe
(don't ask me how) and observed an amoeba like organism crawling.
Still the exactness is well thought up and I believe you may not be far from
the truth.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenfin cudfnFionn cudlnQuinlan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 23:31:54 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <USE2PCB772148225@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

[Various bits about news delays deleted.]

Usenet is what we call a "store and forward" network.  Each site receives a
full selection of articles from its network neighbors.  The articles are
written to disk and then passed on to any other neighbors.  When an article
is posted, it reaches all of Usenet via a "flood fill" algorithm, meaning that
the article originates at a point:

|-----|
|     |
|  .  |
|     |
|-----|

At the next step, the article goes to the site's neighbors:

|-----|
| ... |
| ... |
| ... |
|-----|

then, to their neighbors

|-----|
|.....|
|.....|
|.....|
|-----|

Obviously, Usenet is a bit bigger than this little box.

When you post to a moderated group, the article is mailed to the moderator,
and he/she posts it from their site (o is the originator, . is the posting):

|-----|
|     |
|  o  |
|    .|
|-----|

|-----|
|     |
|  o..|
|   ..|
|-----|

it reaches the original poster on the third step:

|-----|
|  ...|
|  ...|
|  ...|
|-----|

...and so on.

My diagram over-simplifies.  Usenet is not fully-connected, as in the example,
and various hops may have capacity problems or errors along the way.  For
example, the poster may be at a leaf site:

|-----|
|     |----|
|         o|
|     |----|
|-----|

If they submit an article and it is mailed to the moderator and posted

|-----|
|     |----|
|  .      o|
|     |----|
|-----|

after 3 hops the propagation may look like this:

|-----|
|.....|----|
|......   o|
|.....|----|
|-----|

It will take 3 more hops to reach the poster.  However, if one of the
intervening sites has a failure, the article may never reach the original
poster:

|-----|
|.....|----|
|.......X o|
|.....|----|
|-----|

Lastly, if an article is cross-posted to multiple groups and some are
moderated, the article will be mailed to the moderator of the first group
listed on the Newgroups line.  This has been the behavior since the invention
of moderated newsgroups.  It is up to the moderator to deal correctly with the
cross-posting, or to trim it and notify the poster.  If there are multiple
moderated groups listed, the first moderator is supposed to (but sometimes
fails to) negotiate with the other moderator(s) over the cross-posting.

Answering the original question, some folks feel that the delays inherent in
moderation stifles discussion.  Most of these people weren't around when it
took a couple of days for articles to traverse the Usenet backbone, let alone
reach the leaf sites...  My take is that a moderated group (comp.risks or
comp.dcom.telecom are examples) can be as busy as an unmoderated group; it
depends on the subject matter and the real interest level of the moderator.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or tandem!zorch!scott
Moderator, ba.announce; submissions to sfbay-announce@uunet.uu.net
Moderator, comp.newprod; submissions to newprod@uunet.uu.net
Moderator, comp.sys.sun.announce; submissions to css-announce@uunet.uu.net
Moderator, news.admin.technical; submissions to natech@uunet.uu.net
Moderator, rec.arts.sf.announce; submissions to sf-announce@uunet.uu.net
Maintainer of the ba.weather posting droid at 'zorch@uunet.uu.net'.
Write to weather-users-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG to join the WU mailing list.
Write to info-tandem-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG to join the Tandem mailing list.
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Bill Snyder /  Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
Date: 29 May 1995 22:59:04 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In article <Rm7dEzN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com 
(jedrothwell@delphi.com) says...
>

 [entertaining silliness snipped for the sake of brevity]

>In short, this experiment was subjected to the most intense, extended, 
>public scrutiny imaginable, for three days.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Jed, you surpass yourself!

Suuuurre it got "intense, extended, public scrutiny" -- the Believers 
spent 3 days staring at it as hard as they could through the plastic 
barrier that surrounded it.  Golly gee whillikers, they even got to 
*reach in* (through pre-cut holes) to take measurements (at pre-provided 
test points).  No way of knowing whether any of the measurements 
actually *meant* doodley-squat, of course; but as you've so tellingly 
pointed out, only skeptical fools worry about whether measurements 
*mean* anything...

If that's robust proof of "power beyond chemistry," then I have great 
news for you.  There's a new CF device that can be demo-ed (under 
exactly the 
same look-but-don't-touch restrictions) as it produces double the 
"excess power" of the ICCF demo for a week or so, or well upwards of 
quadruple if you restrict the demo to 3 days as before.  

Besides higher output/longer life, it's nicer than the ICCF demo in 
other ways.  It needs *no* input power (although it could easily be set 
up to let 
you input a few hundred milliwatts if you really *wanted* to).  On 
startup, it goes instantly into excess-power mode; no warmup needed.  
Output 
measurements will be easier because the power comes out as electricity 
(or just use the output resistor to heat water if calorimetry is what 
turns your 
crank).

You can even give advance notice to skeptics, and then let *THEM* gaze 
at it and take measurements (through the plastic, of course) to verify 
that it's performing precisely as promised above; no need for the ICCF6 
organizers to get sweaty palms and forget to invite non-Believers to 
this demonstration.

Even more good news:  It's modular, aneutronic, involves no 
non-disclosure agreements, big noisy motors, or exotic chemicals, costs 
less than $100 for the demo version, scales up in a known, simple, and 
predictable fashion, and doesn't have to be ordered from Moldavia.  Just 
trot on down to your local Sears store, automotive section, and ask for 
the "DieHard." (TM)  Tell 'em Snyder sent you.

Of course, once those carping skeptics get hold of one, they'll probably 
claim there's nothing miraculous about it, no "power beyond chemistry" 
involved, the way such cynical killjoys always do.  Stick to your guns, 
Jed -- tell those a**h***s you ran a "robust demo" with "intense public 
scrutiny," and that's all there is to it.  (Just to be on the safe side, 
though, you'd best have the standard excuses ready:  the skeptics lack 
the expertise to operate it properly, they don't understand anything 
about calorimetry, they fudged their figures, they must have 
mispronounced some words when intoning the required incantations over 
their cathodes, the chicken blood used to draw the pentagram wasn't 
fresh, etc., etc. . . .)

Do speak up again any time they under-medicate you and you start feeling 
restless, Jeddikins.  With all the trouble in the world, it's nice to 
know there's *somebody* who is always good for a laugh.

  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,s
i.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 29 May 95 23:23:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
[snip]

>As I've shown in my free electronic book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein 
>lost faith in his theories toward the end of his life.  I have also shown 
>the overwhelming evidence against his two basic postulates, but many of 
>the arguments related to relativity theories are supported by the modern 
>evidence.

The bottom line is that General Relativity is a theory that has been
successfully tested by many experiments and observations.  I do not
think Einstein's doubts about his theories are relevant.  It also does
not matter if you interpret it as an "Aether" theory.  However, most
physicists do not accept that interpretation.

I have not seen any evidence from you that challenges GR.  The
evidence that you have presented in this discussion has been proven
wrong by many of the participants.  For example, I have already given
you references that show that Yilmaz's work is wrong, and that JPL
does use GR in it's ephemerides calculations.  I suggest you check
your evidence carefully before you present it.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.30 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 00:54:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to John Logajon and Jed Rothwell:

If we are discussing the Cravens demo at ICCF5 isn't the proper
characterization "an output of one watt for several days" rather
than "weeks and weeks of output"?  In that case I agree with
John that the observations may be consistant with some chemical
process.  No proof of cold fusion occured at ICCF5,

Next we come to the question of proprietary secrets which would
prevent anyone from independently replicating the Patterson-Cravens
experiments.  John seems to think there are no secrets simply because
there is a patent.  I don't think a patent implies full disclosure of
all details.  How could it if the patent does not even specify the
reaction process that is being induced?  Furthermore Jed Rothwell
assures us there are some secrets.

As for "blank" cells, Jed says that a cell with gold plated beads
serves as a blank, but to my way of thinking the switch to gold
plating certainly would change the chemistry.  Maybe this just
proves the process is entirely chemical.  There have been clues in
other CF experiments that something chemical is occuring, but somehow
that evidence has not been followed up on.

As for CF theories, I don't believe this is "just a strawman" as John
indicates.  I believe the lack of a theory is indicative of underlying
logical conflicts between the claims being floated for cold fusion.
If there really is a unique nuclear reaction process occuring here why
is it so difficult to come up with the evidence?  Why don't we get
answers to such basic questions as: "Are the protons fueling this
process or are they not?" and "If protons are the fuel, what is the
reation product?"  Why must we continue to pretend that finding the
answers to such questions is far to difficult to be given any further
consideration.  In my opinion the reason there is no discussion of
a "theory" for this process on sci.physics.fusion, for example, is that
all the would-be theorists know that they can't put together a
logically coherent picture which is in agreement with the experimental
claims.

The reason for my thinking that the Paterson beads have a surface of
"uncertain characterization" is that I cannot imagine that four 1 micron
layers of metalization can be applied to a polystyrene bead with such
great precision that the layers can be considered "precise" on the
atomic scale.  Even if the layers have a macroscopic precision, the
boundaries must be a jumble of interpenetration and lattice mismatches.

As for connections to other CF results, I'll grant you that Mills and Cravens
both use H2O so they may stand or fall together.  However, I still have
heard no one say how you make sense of deuterium and hydrogen serving
equally well in the CF process.  The nuclear physics has to be different!
The only way I can see to unify the CF observations is to say this is
not a nuclear process.  As for Mills and Cravens supporting a common
cause, I haven't heard of any breakthrough by Mills lately.

Now when I suggest that the lack of connection between CF output and
experimental parameters is a bit troubling, both John and Jed assure us
that CF output is proportional to "something".  We just aren't in a
position to say what that something is, or are we?  Jed does inform us
that cold fusion is "proportional to the nuclear-action state established
in the lattice."  Those are fine words, Jed.  I just don't happen to
know what the heck that could mean.  Is this just a rework of the
SCM concept?

Jed continues to accuse me of saying that cold fusion should be simple.
I have never expressed that point of view.  I once again state my
position that it should be very difficult to induce cold fusion by
chemical means.  So difficult, in fact, that I doubt that anyone
has achieved that goal.  Is that plain enough for you, Jed?

I also do not have any expectations regarding Patterson's publishing
habits.  I have just been responding to the assertions concerning
cold fusion that have appeared on sci.physics. fusion.

As you say, Jed, Patterson may be an expert on surface chemistry, but
what does he know about nuclear physics?  Isn't the issue under
discussion the evidence being put forth to support claims for the
achievement of energy release via a nuclear reaction process?
If we are looking at new and improved chemistry I'll admit I am
in no position to challange Patterson's claims.

I am just wondering how long you can keep up interest in a cold fusion
process that runs on hot air.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.30 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 30 May 1995 00:44:30 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <R8wfctE.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> A few years ago, a Congressman asked me if I could suggest a change to the
> hot fusion funding bill....I suggested that they find some paying customers
> for the tokamak reactors and ask them to put down some earnest money for the
> product. If private industry agrees to pay for 51% of the hot fusion
> program, because private industry intends to buy the product, that is fine
> with me.

Ironically, that's essentially what the TRP and ATP programs were -- they
required an industrial lead for each consortium, and 50% cost-sharing.
We've seen just how much the Republicans like that idea. Which is strange,
really -- you'd think they'd have loved it as being fiscally prudent with
Federal research money.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.29 / Jeff Chilton /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: chilton@wishep.physics.wisc.edu (Jeff Chilton)
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: Mon, 29 May 1995 20:31:41 -0500
Organization: Zik Zak Corp. Blipverts Division

In article <3q9ui3$t0d@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) wrote:
...[blah, blah, blah]...

> Since most scientists do not use or are conversant in tensor mathematics, its
> use has tended to obscure the intimate meaning behind the relativity
> theoretical arguments.

...[blah, blah, blah]...

Errrr...upon what evidence do you base this assertion?  Every scientist I
know seems quite conversant with them.  I would guess that of the 20 or so
graduate physics students in my year, at least 15 are "conversant," and
the other 5 are at least competent enough to get through the exams.  (BTW,
here's a little hint for you:  tensors are just like matrices.  They tend,
for the most part, to follow all the rules that matrices do.  If you don't
understand matrices, i.e., linear algebra, then there really isn't any
hope for you.  In this case, I suggest you please shut up and go away).

It's always rather sad to see people who can't handle mathematics resort
to trying to rewrite the whole of physics just so they can try to feel
superior.  Take my advice:

1)  Enroll in an undergraduate college.  Pay attention.  Do your work. 
Get your degree.

2)  Enroll in a graduate school.  Pay attention.  Do your work.  Have some
fun doing research and get a PhD.  Be sure to read plenty of journals and
talk with your professors.

At this point, you will probably see the error of your ways, and stop
wasting your life writing this silly tripe.  Then again, I could just be a
member of the evil establishment, tring to brainwash you and suck you into
the great JPL coverup of the speed of light.  (Did I mention we killed
Kennedy, too?)

-- 
******************************************************************************
* Jeffrey E. Chilton - UW Madison Dept. of Physics  | "It is wrong to be     *
*       B635-A Chamberlin Hall (608) 262 9657       |  French."              *
*         chilton@wishep.physics.wisc.edu           |             --Al Bundy *
* http://www.physics.wisc.edu/~chilton/chilton.html |                        *
******************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenchilton cudfnJeff cudlnChilton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: 30 May 1995 02:45:14 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: If we are discussing the Cravens demo at ICCF5 isn't the proper
: characterization "an output of one watt for several days" rather
: than "weeks and weeks of output"?  In that case I agree with
: John that the observations may be consistant with some chemical
: process. 

It'd have to be some sort of Li2SO4+H2O reaction.  That's the only
thing with enough molecular mass to account for a couple three days
worth of one watt output.  The metalization on the beads could only
account for about 5-10 minutes of 1 watt output before being
completely consumed.  So what happened to the electrolyte after
three days?  It would also have to have been "consumed" in some
manner and left chemical ash.  There are no reports of such ash
appearing.  


: John seems to think there are no secrets simply because there is a
: patent....  Jed Rothwell assures us there are some secrets.

Yeah, I noticed that.  Don't know what to say.  Jed is better connected
with these guys than I.  But that was the first I heard of any "secrets."
I did talk to Cravens one night on the phone and he seemed willing to
answer any of the questions I could think of -- though I really didn't
get into preparation details, I was more interested in measuring 
protocols.


: There have been clues in other CF experiments that something chemical
: is occuring, but somehow that evidence has not been followed up on.

What clues?  One clue would be the appearence of a lot of chemical
ash piling up.  Where has this been seen?  One of my "jobs" is to
dissect clues.  I'm all ears.  :-)


: As for CF theories, I don't believe this is "just a strawman" as John
: indicates.  I believe the lack of a theory is indicative of underlying
: logical conflicts between the claims being floated for cold fusion.

I think the "strawman" I was referring to was a sort of assertion that
there is one common CF theory and all participants in the field agree
with it and are condemned equally when inconsistent data appears.


: all the would-be theorists know that they can't put together a
: logically coherent picture which is in agreement with the experimental
: claims.

I agree with that and I think it is possible that some "claims" are
mistaken or misinterpreted -- I just don't know which ones. :-)


: The reason for my thinking that the Paterson beads have a surface of
: "uncertain characterization" is that I cannot imagine that four 1 micron
: layers of metalization can be applied to a polystyrene bead with such
: great precision that the layers can be considered "precise" on the
: atomic scale.  Even if the layers have a macroscopic precision, the
: boundaries must be a jumble of interpenetration and lattice mismatches.

Well that seems likely.  I guess the question is whether they are 
*sufficiently* characterized.  One advantage of multiple independent
beads is that a large portion of them could be duds yet the rest may
produce some effect.  This'd be the Monte Carlo approach to effect
production.  Even if you can't understand the actual micro-structure
to the n'th detail, you can still macro tune input factors for the
greatest "statistical" peak output.


: However, I still have
: heard no one say how you make sense of deuterium and hydrogen serving
: equally well in the CF process.  The nuclear physics has to be different!

It's a puzzlement. :-)


: both John and Jed assure us that CF output is proportional to "something".

Actually, I said it "may" be proportional to something.  I would assume
that nature is linked causally -- so I'm willing to strengthen my 
remarks to suggest that *if* something is there, then it is proportional
to something.  There, now I really did say it. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.30 /  Vilabailov /  Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
     
Originally-From: vilabailov@aol.com (Vilabailov)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
Date: 30 May 1995 02:15:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

For another viewpoint on ball lightning, try Harold Aspden (Saberton
Press, but probably out of prin)t.  If you can't obtain his books, email
me.  I can provide copies of the appropriate section from one of his
books.

Regards, Wm. P. Bailey
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvilabailov cudlnVilabailov cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 30 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
