1995.06.09 / John Logajan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 9 Jun 1995 01:29:49 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: attempts to control Mr. Wallace's posting decisions--that ill-defined
: "majorities" have the right to dictate the personal decisions of
: individuals--is as tyrannical as Stalin or Hitler could ever have hoped to
: be.

Puhleeezee!  We are using persuasion rather than coercion.  If you are
consistent in believing in freedom of content in speech, then you have
absolutely no basis to critize the condemnation content of our speech.
You are holding a contradictory position -- freedom of speech for some,
but not for others.  Make up you mind.

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 9 Jun 1995 01:34:49 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: But we must remember the ZPF is very weak (which is
: why the Casimir effect is far two small to ever detect), and thus
: the resulting amount of shrinkage would also be very small

If there were a ZPF shrinkage, wouldn't it already be factored into the
dimensions of the H atom?  

--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / David Spain /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: dls@mv.mv.com (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 03:49:38 GMT
Organization: /usr3/users/dls/.organization


In article <3r2i84$b8s@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:

   I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
   Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
   stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
   active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
   has reason to be posting here.

Scott,

What you haven't told us is whether or not a simple majority (or even an
overwhelming majority) will be enough to convince Mr Wallace to stop
cross posting.  What if you get 1 yes?  If that person shows up in no
other newsgroup does Mr. Wallace consider that enough justification to
continue crossposting to s.p.f?

I am fortunate enough to have a newsreader that allows me to build
kill files based either on Subject or Author. I find this a VERY helpful
method for creating my own editorial policy. If you are not using a newsreader
with this capability you should look around for a new one, there are plenty
available with this capability.

Dave Spain
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendls cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Dieter Britz /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 08:43:53 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 8 Jun 1995, Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:

> In article: <3r54h9$89s@boris.eden.com>  little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> > 
> > As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
> > want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
> > want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.
> > 
> Scott:
> 
> I missed your original post advertising the vote, but please accept
> this from me as a vote for removal. The man never _had_ any
> justification for believing sci.physics.fusion was a prime medium
> for those interested in his thread. He talks and operates in the
> true net.loon mould, and as such should be given no latitude at all.
> 
> But how do you expect to enforce the removal once the vote counting
> has finished? You don't really expect him to stop posting, do you?
> 

I am a bit unhappy at the way this has gone. It started with Scott collecting
votes, the results of which were to be presented to Wallace, to try to 
persuade him to stop posting here. Somewhere along the line, the assumption
arose that he is not reasonable, and we have to mail bomb him to make him
stop. Should we give up on his good will quite so soon? Maybe he'll agree to
stop when he sees the result, and we'll save ourselves a lot of trouble.

By the way, I seem to remember its being argued that even if he stops, it
will not stop the cross-posts because others are replying. The answer to
that is that yes, they will go on for a while, but if he doesn't post any
new ones, those other, older ones (or responses to) will soon die out.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:14:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To address John Logajan's remarks:

The specific point I was trying to make draws a destinction between
thermal energy transport and chemical energy transport in the
circulating electrolyte of the Cravens demo device.  The use of
the dewar and the other points you raise address only the question
of thermal energy transport.  On this I concede that the data
indicates the transport of one watt net flow out of the cell.  The
calibrations to which you refer presumably indicate that, prior
to the onset of whatever, the themal transport does match the electrical
power input; but then something happens.  The debate concern what
it is that can happen result in an additional one watt of thermal
energy transport.

An essential part of the CF argument has always been that there must
be an undetected nuclear process occuring because chemistry cannot
account for the excess heat.  I have just been suggesting that this
argument, for the Cravens demo, may be full of holes.  So far no one
has come forward to explain why it is impossible to add chemical
energy transport to the list of possible ways to account for the
observed excess heat.  As I said, I believe the requirement is for
the addition of 0.1 J per ml of electrolyte in the portion of the
fluid circuit external to the cell.

Since we are talking about different kinds of black magic rather than
anything that is detected I think we should include as many possibilities
as our fertile imaginations can generate.  Some people prefer to invent
unknown nuclear reactions.  I like to invent unknown chemistry as a
means for explaining CF.  There certainly are some indications that
the nuclear properties of the electrolyte and the cathode material are
not particularly significant to the sort of CF that Cravens is inducing.
If a change from D2O to H2O makes no difference I take that as a sign.
If leaving out 96% of the Pd makes no difference I take that as a sign.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / 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
,misc.books.technical,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics.electromag,sci.phy
ics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 9 Jun 1995 10:00:34 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
: M.D. O'Leary (mdo4@le.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Wallace quotes Moyer to support his theory that c+v was used for light transit
: : times, not gr. Conrad has checked up on the ref...

: : >This last quote is taken out of context.  Here is the same quote with a
: : >little more context.  (The equation is in tex format.)  As you will see,
: : >Wallace left out a key comment about the second term.
: : >
: : >	t_3(ET) - t_2(ET) = \frac{r_{23}}{c} + \psi_{23} 	(A5)
: : >
: : >	The first term on the right-hand side is the Newtonian light time;
: : >	the second term is a relativistic correction which accounts for
: : >	the reduction in the coordinate velocity of light (below c) due to
: : >	the mass of the Sun and other bodies (such as Jupiter and Saturn).
: : >
: : >Moyer explicitly states that he derives his results from general relativity
: : >in the first paragraph of the paper. 
: : >	"The expression is obtained using general relativity; however to
: : >	the accuracy of the retained terms, it is consistent with all
: : >	viable relativistic theories of gravitation."
: : >Wallace's claims otherwise are a gross misinterpretation of Moyer's work.

: : OK. I've just finished reading Wallaces work, and can confirm that it is more
: : than 80% quoted material. I do not have the time or the access to physics
: : library resources to follow all of these up, but if this case is representative
: : of the intellectual honesty with which Wallace presents such quoted material, I
: : think the merit of the book is obvious. 8(

: : It may be that you have a real case to present for an alternative physics, but
: : the use of 'twisted' quotes to try and lend yourself the authority of 'big
: : name' scientists is deplorable, and damages your cause rather than serving it.

: : M.
: : -- 
: : .sig test: nearing completion.

: I don't question the Gr added relativistic corrections to the "Newtonian 
: light time" used by Moyer at JPL.  The main point is that light behaves 
: as a Newtonian particle with additional GR corrections.  Since you read 
: Moyer's article you should have mentioned that all orbits are based on 
: Newtonian Mechanics with added GR corrections.  GR is only equivalent to 
: Newtonian Mechanics for the single body  problem.  To  calculate useful 
: orbits in the solar system you must use Newtonian Mechanics and Newtonian 
: particle c+v light time!  As I've said in the book, much of SR and GR is 
: correct but the modern observational evidence has gone against his first 
: relativity and second constant speed of light for all observers 
: postulates!  I expect your estimate of 80% of my book being quotations is 
: your normal tendency for exaggeration, in any case much of the stuff 
: quoted is my own published material!!!

: Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 9 Jun 1995 09:50:12 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Derek Ross (rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net) wrote:
:  
: In article <21cenlogic-0806950020290001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) writes:
: >In article <3r54h9$89s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
: >
: >> As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
: >> want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
: >> want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.
: >
: >Nobody cares about your dumb vote except scumbags who believe that the
: >majority has a right to censor and control the behavior of the minority!
: >The rest of us--those who are inclined to mind our own business--deal with
: >posts we don't like by not reading them. It's called "live and let live,"
: >and it works just fine. It's people like you, driven by your insatiable
: >desire to control and intimidate others, who are the impetus behind the
: >move for government control of the internet. The logic is simple: at
: >present, Wallace and other victims of attempted majoritarian intimidation
: >have the option of simply telling the busybodies to kiss off. Therefore,
: >say the busybodies, we need to legislate penalties with teeth in them.
: >And, of course, once the penalties with teeth are in place, they will be
: >used to silence newsgroups such as this one, where a majority vote will
: >beyond a shadow of a doubt conclude that "cold fusion" is a crackpot
: >notion that ought to be suppressed! You guys need to pull your heads out
: >of your behinds and look at the implications of what you are doing!
: >
: >--Mitchell Jones
: >===========================================================
: >

: I subscribe to sci.physics.fusion because I want to read about
: fusion related science.  

: Every time Bryan Wallace puts one of his enormous postings on
: sci.physics.fusion, it costs me at least 20 cents.  Why should I
: pay to download his posts ?  They're not about fusion!  I never read
: them but I can't refuse them if I want to read sci.physics.fusion.
: You would soon holler if you started having to pay for the junk mail
: you get through your door.  Why can't I holler when I have to pay for
: junk mail down the phone line ?  Just because I'm part of the
: minority who has to pay long distance phone charges should I be
: browbeaten into keeping quiet by the majority who don't ?  No way !
: Freedom of speech for me too! 

: And what's this stuff about censorship ?  I'm not trying to censor
: Bryan.  I doubt that anyone else is either.  The BEST place for him
: to publish is alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  What's the point in
: having subject areas if everybody ignores them ?  We might as well
: have one big newsgroup with 10,000 messages a day in it.  If Bryan
: publishes in alt.sci.physics.new-theories then people who WANT to pay
: to read his posts will know where to find them.  I think his theories
: SHOULD be published but I don't think I should be paying so that he
: can publish them. 

: I'm glad you mind your own business.  That's what I do.  And this
: is my business.  My financial business.  As for 'live and let live',
: when Bryan stops costing me money, I'll 'live and let live' but not
: before. I'm sure you'd feel the same if someone started hitting
: your bank balance.

: Cheers

: Derek

My posting does not cost you anything unless you read the file!  You have 
a very limited understanding of Internet News.  You need to read the free 
book, Cold Fusion is as much a Farce as many of the other areas of 
research in modern physics. I read sci.physics.fusion every day and have 
as much right to post in this group as you do.  If you don't like what I 
have to say, don't read it!!!

Bryan





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update June 9, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update June 9, 1995
Date: 9 Jun 1995 18:19:59 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (June 9, 1995):

Since the last update further DT experiments have been conducted to study
the confined alpha particles, develop operating techniques for future DT
experiments, and extend machine operation to 6T.  In addition, further
analysis of the DT experiments has been performed.

The goal of experimental proposal DT-35 was to a) obtain a measured alpha
spectrum out to 3.5 MeV, and  b) searching for the gyrobroadening effect
using the alpha-charge exchange diagnostic, in collaboration with GA and
Ioffe.  Using single boron pellets injected 200 ms after beam turn off, we
obtained good measurements of the alpha slowing down spectra out to 3.5 MeV
with 3 DT shots.  Beam blips were used to study the gyrobroadening effect.
A  beam duration of 100 - 140 ms with beam powers in the range of 28-33 MW
was injected into R=3D2.45m, Ip=3D1.5 MA plasmas.  During DD setup discharge=
s
both Li and Boron pellets were injected at 10 ms, 50 ms and 100 ms after
beam termination in order to assess pellet penetration.  During the DT
shots, measurements at 50 ms and 100 ms after beam termination indicate a
broad, smooth energy distribution centered around 3.0 MeV with full width
of about 2 MeV.  Unfortunately, the Boron pellet performance was not
adequate for the measurements 10 ms after beam termination, this being the
most promising time to obtain good signal level before slowing down of the
alphas influenced the birth energy distribution.  The measured distribution
functions will be compared with code predictions.

An experiment to observe the effects of sawteeth on confined alpha
particles with the Alpha-CHERS diagnostic was performed in collaboration
with the Univ. of Wisconsin, using a standard D-T supershot plasma with
Ip=3D2.0 MA, R=3D2.52 m, and beam power of 22 MW.  Following a 1.3 second D-=
T
beam phase to produce the alphas, the deuterium beams were kept on for an
additional 0.7 second diagnostic beam phase for Alpha-CHERS.  The beam
power was sharply dropped in the middle of this period to induce a sawtooth
at a desired time.  It was found to be more difficult to induce a sawtooth
in D-T plasmas than in D-D, however a total of 6 D-T shots with sawteeth
were obtained in this way.  This data set will allow the effects of the
sawteeth on the alpha population at the five radii observed by Alpha-CHERS
to be studied.  Preliminary analysis of data from two of these shots shows
that the alpha density in the 0.1-0.6 MeV range observed by Alpha-CHERS
drops strongly near the magnetic axis following the sawtooth crash, but is
not strongly affected at radii outside the q=3D1 surface.  Analysis of this
data set is ongoing and the measured alpha energy and spatial distributions
will be compared with TRANSP code predictions before and after the sawtooth
crash.

        D-T experiments to explore collective instabilities that are driven
by alpha particles were performed in a collaboration with the University of
California at Irvine and the DIII-D group at General Atomics at San Diego.
The goal of these experiments is to use alpha particles to study the
stability of Beta-induced Alfv=E9n Eigenmodes (BAE modes).  BAE modes reside
in a gap in the Alfv=E9n continuum that is caused by plasma compressibility
and pressure.  The experimental objective was to maximize beta alpha and
the poloidal beta without disrupting the plasma.


        Two basic plasma conditions were studied, a full toroidal field low
current supershot with reduced beam power to avoid a disruption and a low
toroidal field 3.5T, and low current supershots at higher beam power.   A
search for alpha-driven beta-induced Alfv=E9n Eigenmodes (BAE modes) was
conducted in low current supershots, Ip =3D 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 MA.  Stable
high-beta DT discharges (bn ne(0)/<ne> =3D 6.8) with poloidal beta of 2.4 an=
d
central alpha beta of 0.1% were obtained.  Preliminary analysis shows no
evidence of an alpha-driven BAE mode.  MHD activity in the 50 to 150 kHz
range was observed, but it was present in both DD and DT plasmas.  Further
analysis on the experimental data is taking place this week.

  "Investigation of Collisional Nonprompt Loss using Major Radius Shifts"
was completed to study alpha particle loss associated with plasma
compressions. Shifts were conducted from R=3D2.62m to radii as small as 2.35=
m
and back again, at various plasma currents.  Enhanced losses (above first
orbit loss) during shifts were observed to increase with plasma current.
Analysis is continuing to determine if these results are consistent with
the shift of the passing/trapped boundary associated with the radius shift.

    An experiment aimed at  increasing the stability of the highest field,
highest current plasmas by modifying the current profile was conducted.
The experiments were performed at low toroidal field (3T) and low current
(1.5MA) to minimize the impact of disruptions.  A prerequisite for this
approach is the creation of low recycling plasmas with q(a) =3D 2.5.  The
experiment was successful in that 23 such plasmas were made and neutral
beam heating of them has begun.  Further work to improve the reliability of
the start-up of these plasmas (currently the success rate is about 50%) is
required as well as investigation of the stability properties by increasing
the neutral beam heating power.

    An outboard-limiter initiated discharge was developed to optimize the
effect of lithium pellet wall conditioning of the inner bumper limiter. It
was determined that a 0.5 Tl/s gas puff starting at t=3D100 ms and lasting
for 300 ms allowed for successful outboard initiation of 2.3 MA - 2.6 MA,
5.6 T discharges even in the presence of a heavily Li-conditioned inner
wall.  After successful initiation outboard, these discharges were moved
onto the inboard limiter and standard Li pellet injection was accomplished.
This outboard-to-inboard movement should allow for the fullest possible
exploitation of a Li-pellet pre-conditioned inner limiter.

        The toroidal field system has been successfully tested to 6T (at
2.48m). The modifications to the field coil conversion system, the neutral
beam power conversion system and motor generator sets to support extended
operation of the toroidal field system were successfully demonstrated.
Good progress was made in plasma operation by setting up discharges with Ip
=3D 2.7 MA and toroidal field of Bt =3D 5.8 T.  These new capabilities will =
be
used in our upcoming high power campaigns.

    Results of some recent analysis work during the past month are
summarized below:

   An Alfven frequency mode (AFM) is very often seen in TFTR neutral
beam heated plasmas as well as ohmic plasmas.  This quasi-coherent mode is
so far only seen on the magnetic fluctuation diagnostics (Mirnov coils).  A
close correlation between the plasma edge density and the mode activity
(frequency and amplitude) has been observed, which indicates that the AFM
is an edge localized mode with r/a > 0.85.  No direct impact of this mode
on the plasma global performance or fast ion loss (e.g., the
alpha-particles in DT experiments) has been observed.  This mode is
apparently not the conventional TAE (toroidicity-induced Alfven
eigenmodes).  The present TAE theory cannot explain the observation.

        A correlation between the measured alpha particle loss and a high
frequency (~50-200 kHz) MHD activity has been observed in high performance
D-T plasmas.  These MHD modes are localized around the peak pressure
gradient with q > ~ 1.  They have ballooning characteristics.  Two
different phenomena are observed.  (1) Strong bursting mode.  Similar to
the fishbone mode, each burst has a ~10-14% drop in the mode frequency and
correlates with a < ~ 30% enhancement on the alpha loss.  (2)
Quasi-continuous multi-peak modes.  The fluctuation in alpha loss often
correlates with one branch.  These modes are also seen in high performance
DD plasmas.

        A preliminary comparison with a kinetic ballooning mode theory
shows that the bursting mode may be potentially driven by the trapped alpha
particles.  The quasi-continuous mode may be driven by the beam ions (omega
~ omega*pi, where omega*pi is the ion diamagnetic frequency).  Detailed
comparison between the experiment and the KBM theory and their potential
effects on the ITER plasma are being studied at present.


   Z. Chang et al. published in the June 5 issue of Physical Review
Letters a paper entitled "Observation of Nonlinear Neoclassical
Pressure-Gradient-Driven Tearing Modes in TFTR"  Vol. 74, p. 4663 (1995)


        The Fourth IAEA TCM and Joint US-Japan Workshop on Alpha Particles
in Fusion Research, was held at PPPL, on April 25-28, 1995.   The following
is a summary of the highlights of the  experimental results from TFTR
presented at the workshop:

        "Alpha Heating of Electrons in TFTR D-T Plasmas" was presented by
Gary Taylor.  The measured core electron heating has the following
behavior:  It increases with fusion power, it is not an isotope effect and
the time evolution is consistent with alpha heating.  The localization is
also consistent with alpha heating and the conclusion was that we are
observing heating of electrons by alphas.

        "Improvement of Core Confinement and Alpha Particle Production
Using Aggressive Lithium Conditioning in TFTR" was presented by D. K.
Mansfield.  The results were that extensive conditioning of the limiter
with Li pellets has resulted in  extremely peaked plasma parameters.
Because  of the extreme peaking of the external heating power, fusion
reactions take place efficiently in the plasma core.  Supershot discharges
with greatly enhanced core confinement properties have been produced in
TFTR and are being studied with the goal of increased alpha particle
production.

        "Confined Alpha Particle Results" were presented by George McKee
(Univ. of Wisconsin) and M. P. Petrov (A. F. Ioffe Physical-Technical, St.
Petersburg, Russia)  They found that the slowing down alpha distribution
was observed with alpha-CHERS and Pellet Charge Exchange (PCX).  The
spectra agree well with the neoclassical predictions for the alpha
particles.  Also the thermalization of the alphas are consistent with
classical slowing-down.  Preliminary radial profiles of the alpha
distribution is near expectations.  Sawteeth have a large influence on the
alpha distribution.  In the outer plasma regions, the trapped alpha
confinement is determined by the stochastic ripple diffusion.  Post NBI
sawtooth oscillations effectively transport fast trapped alphas radially
outwards to the stochastic diffusion domain.  This transport can lead to
enhanced first orbit and ripple alpha losses.

        "Alpha Particle Driven Ion Cyclotron Emission in TFTR" was
presented by S. Cauffman.  The results were that alpha particles excite the
Alfven cyclotron instability in TFTR.  This instability is only observed
when the alpha distribution function is sufficiently narrow and this
criterion is relaxed when the local Alfven speed is lowered.  The Alfven
cyclotron instability thus may provide insight regarding early evolution of
the alpha particle population

        "Alpha Particle Loss in TFTR DT Experiments" was presented by S. J.
Zweben  The results were that the alpha loss at the 90o detector is
consistent with expected first-orbit loss versus current, pitch angle,
gyro-radius, and time.  However, the alpha loss to the 20o detector has
some features in common with the expected TF ripple. In addition no serious
MHD-induced alpha loss has been observed yet on TFTR during DT, except just
prior to major disruptions.  This result of the alpha loss at disruptions
is an important result for ITER and further work will be done on TFTR.  No
alpha loss due to collective alpha-driven instabilities has been seen yet
on TFTR.

        "Characterization of Alpha Loss during Disruptions in TFTR During
Deuterium-Tritium Operation" was presented by A. Janos.  The results were
that most disruption-induced alpha losses occur during the thermal quench
phases (100ms to several ms).  The alpha losses start during the precursor
phase of high beta disruptions.  The alpha losses start with a large burst
at the start of the thermal quench, wherein 30% of the losses can occur.
The losses occur preferentially at the 90o detector as opposed to the 60o
or 45o detectors.  The estimates yields about 20% of the stored alphas are
released during the disruption.

        "ICRF-Related Losses of Fusion Products from TFTR" was presented by
D. S. Darrow.  The results were that ICRF pushes marginally-passing alphas
into first orbit loss cone.  The loss is ~2% of birth rate with 4 MW ICRF.
The fusion products lost during mode conversion IBW heating was  more
important.  Here the loss rate can be large, ~50% of birth rate and the
loss occurs at passing/trapped boundary.  Some particles are heated
substantially before they are lost.


        "The TAE Mode Studies" was presented by E. Fredrickson.  The
results were that studies of ICRF driven TAE modes are providing important
information for benchmarking theoretical codes.  To date there is not
sufficient evidence to clearly determine alpha-driven TAE threshold in
neutral beam heated discharges.  The experiments are in reasonable
agreement with TAE stability calculations.

        "Investigation of Alpha Particle Effects on Toroidal Alfven
Eigenmodes in DT Plasmas" was presented by K. L. Wong.  The results were
that the RF power threshold for TAE instability in DT plasmas is about 20%
lower than that in similar deuterium plasmas.  Preliminary estimates
indicate that the alpha particles contribute 10-20% to the driving term.
The behavior of the TAE amplitude after RF is turned off can provide useful
information for the study of nonlinear saturation mechanism.

        "Alpha Particle Behavior During DT H-Modes on TFTR" was presented
by C. E. Bush.  The results were that the H-mode phenomena, transition and
ELMs, affect the efflux and distribution of alphas and other fusion
products in DT and DD plasmas.  There is no anomously large loss of  alphas
during the DT H-modes, but there is a large loss of DD fusion products at
the transition.  Understanding of the interaction between H-mode phenomena
and fusion products may help in controlling ELMs, alpha particles, and
fusion ash in ITER.

Eleven TFTR papers were submitted to the Eleventh International
Conference on Radio Frequency Power in Plasmas Conference, 17 - 19 May, in
Palm Springs, CA.  Below are some of the highlights from the TFTR papers:

ICRF in D-T Plasmas in TFTR
        J. R. Wilson
        The heating of plasmas at 2 WT are in good agreement with modeling
results.  Fast wave current drive results in preheated plasmas on TFTR
support previous work done on DIII-D.  A new regime of electron heating and
current drive (mode conversion) has been observed on TFTR and it allows
controllable, localized absorption of the RF power.  On TFTR interaction
with alpha particles of both fast and ion Bernstein waves has been
observed.
        Experiments with modulated ICRF measured power deposition has shown
that:
        - Data agrees with two dimensional Models
        - Up to 60% of ICF power to core with second harmonic tritium heatin=
g.


     Fast Wave Current Drive on TFTR
        J. H. Rogers
        Two scenarios of Fast Wave Current Drive (FWCD) were attempted in
which the toroidal field and plasma current were sufficiently high.
Although the small current drive is difficult to diagnose, all the
measurements were within expectations.

     Mode Conversion Experiments in TFTR
        R. Majeski
        Mode conversion heating has been demonstrated on TFTR where the
central electron temperature has been raised from 3 to 10 keV with 4 MW of
centrally deposited RF power.  Strong, localized off-axis heating has also
been seen.  Mode conversion current drive has been demonstrated on TFTR,
with 125 kA driven on-axis, using 2.2 MW of RF and 100 kA driven off-axis,
with 3.4 MW of RF.
        The plasma current profile has been modified with off-axis mode
conversion current drive.  In addition a strong interaction with fusion
products has been observed on TFTR with mode conversion heating.  This may
allow possible control over the spatial and energy distribution of fusion
products.




=46uture Plans
With the completion of testing of the toroidal field system and
reconditioning the neutral beams to high power, we will continue
deuterium-tritium experiments.

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.



_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
=46ax:    (609) 243-3248


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Karl Kluge /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: 10 Jun 1995 02:46:31 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov> Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot
ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:

>   The rejection of "Cold Fusion" by the scientific 
>   establishment, in spite of obvious experimental facts, is 
>   and will be analysed for many years by sociologists as a 
>   unique case of strong splitting of the scientific 
>   community into two very opposite sides. However even 
>   though this case is quite unique in modern history, it is 
>   not unique if we simply change the word science by 
>   religion.

The erroneous underlying premise here that renders the whole anaysis
invalid is the presumption that "obvious experimental facts" have
decisively confirmed cold fusion, and that this is a "unique case"
in science. Neither is necessarily true.

As an observer on the sidelines, it seems to me like a situation
analogous to the study of memory transfer via RNA in the late
60s/early 70s. Lots of published papers with statistically
significant effects (although the details of the effect(s) varied,
in sometimes contradictory ways, between positive results), uneven
replication (heck, there was a 50% replication rate in the
literature for the memory transfer studies, which I suspect compares
favorably with cold fusion in its formative years).



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Morrison's assertions about ERPI and Pons
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's assertions about ERPI and Pons
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 23:08:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
 
    "The article by Morrison contains a number of unsubstaniated claims made
    by 'informed sources'.
 
    Can anyone categorically state that EPRI has stopped funding CNF or that
    Pons has definitely left the field?"
 
Oh yes. Anyone can categorically state that. But categorically stating
something does not make it true. EPRI is still funding CNF and doing better
than ever, and Pons is still in the field.
 
Also, by the way, Morrison said that Pons did not give a talk during the
conference. That's true. He did not talk, period. He had a rotten cold, so
Fleischmann read his paper for him. Morrison made a mountain of this mole
hill.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 13:47:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <136@arbroath.win-uk.net>, rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net (Derek
Ross) wrote:

>  
> In article <21cenlogic-0806950020290001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) writes:
> >In article <3r54h9$89s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
> >
> >> As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
> >> want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
> >> want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.
> >
> >Nobody cares about your dumb vote except scumbags who believe that the
> >majority has a right to censor and control the behavior of the minority!
> >The rest of us--those who are inclined to mind our own business--deal with
> >posts we don't like by not reading them. It's called "live and let live,"
> >and it works just fine. It's people like you, driven by your insatiable
> >desire to control and intimidate others, who are the impetus behind the
> >move for government control of the internet. The logic is simple: at
> >present, Wallace and other victims of attempted majoritarian intimidation
> >have the option of simply telling the busybodies to kiss off. Therefore,
> >say the busybodies, we need to legislate penalties with teeth in them.
> >And, of course, once the penalties with teeth are in place, they will be
> >used to silence newsgroups such as this one, where a majority vote will
> >beyond a shadow of a doubt conclude that "cold fusion" is a crackpot
> >notion that ought to be suppressed! You guys need to pull your heads out
> >of your behinds and look at the implications of what you are doing!
> >
> >--Mitchell Jones
> >===========================================================
> >
> 
> I subscribe to sci.physics.fusion because I want to read about
> fusion related science.  
> 
> Every time Bryan Wallace puts one of his enormous postings on
> sci.physics.fusion, it costs me at least 20 cents.  Why should I
> pay to download his posts ?  They're not about fusion!  I never read
> them but I can't refuse them if I want to read sci.physics.fusion.

***{Derek, you simply don't know what you are talking about. A competently
designed, properly configured news reader does not behave as you describe.
I use News Watcher, and when I click on a newsgroup, all it loads into my
computer is the newsgroup index, which is a list of the authors and names
of all the postings that are currently available on the newsgroup. The
difference in connect time between loading the index for
sci.physics.fusion with Bryan Wallaces' index postings and loading it
without them is a few milliseconds. If your internet provider charges you
20 cents for a few milliseconds of connect time, I suggest that you shop
around. (Take my word for it, you can get a better deal almost anywhere!)
Now, once you get the newsgroup index loaded into your computer, you can
scroll through it and click on the postings that interest you. When you
click, your modem snaps into activity, as indicated by the lights that are
usually on the front panel (which begin flashing), and the article begins
being loaded into your machine. If you don't click on one of Bryan
Wallace's articles, in other words, it isn't loaded, and you can
disconnect from the internet that much quicker, thereby avoiding having to
pay for the connect time to load his articles. Bottom line: you are full
of beans. Either you do not have a competently designed news reader, or
you haven't configured your reader properly, or you are in the habit of
clicking on Bryan Wallace's postings. That's the only way his postings
cost you diddley. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> You would soon holler if you started having to pay for the junk mail
> you get through your door.  Why can't I holler when I have to pay for
> junk mail down the phone line ?  Just because I'm part of the
> minority who has to pay long distance phone charges should I be
> browbeaten into keeping quiet by the majority who don't ?  No way !
> Freedom of speech for me too!

***{See above. --MJ}*** 
> 
> And what's this stuff about censorship ?  I'm not trying to censor
> Bryan.  I doubt that anyone else is either.  The BEST place for him
> to publish is alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  What's the point in
> having subject areas if everybody ignores them ?  We might as well
> have one big newsgroup with 10,000 messages a day in it.  If Bryan
> publishes in alt.sci.physics.new-theories then people who WANT to pay
> to read his posts will know where to find them. 

***{You simply do not understand the concept of the unmoderated newsgroup.
The idea is that we can allow each individual the freedom to decide where
his posts are relevant because the vast majority of posters will be pretty
accurate in their decision making, and those who aren't can be dealt with
by simply skipping over their postings. We don't need to create some slimy
information czar to screen our postings; we don't need small-minded gangs
of majoritarian thugs seeking to impose censorship by bullying and
intimidation; and we don't need what most of these assholes do when they
are quite properly told to kiss off--which is: they troop to Washington,
D.C. and demand that legislation be passed to impose "restraint" on this
"anarchic" and "unruly" medium--which just happens to be the first really
free press that has ever existed in the history of the world. Naturally,
the parasites who infest that disgusting city are only too eager to
comply. They know that their ability to continue riding on our backs is
crucially dependent on their ability to control the flow of information.
They don't want their every pronouncement screened on unmoderated
newsgroups, where literally millions of minds and millions of information
sources can be brought to bear to unmask their schemes. Bottom line: what
you guys are doing is evil incarnate, whether you know it or not. You need
to back off and think about what you are doing, giving particular
consideration to the implications. --MJ}***

> SHOULD be published but I don't think I should be paying so that he
> can publish them. 
> 
> I'm glad you mind your own business.  That's what I do.  And this
> is my business.  My financial business.  As for 'live and let live',
> when Bryan stops costing me money, I'll 'live and let live' but not
> before. I'm sure you'd feel the same if someone started hitting
> your bank balance.
> 
> Cheers

***{Yadda, yadda, yadda. Your head is so far up your rectum that you can
see out of your mouth. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Derek

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Logajan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 03:05:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: John, you apparently don't know what persuasion is. Persuasion involves
: argument--i.e., the use of evidence and logic to change opinion.

I know an ad hoc definition when I see one.


: You are merely conveying your preferences to Mr. Wallace

Indeed, and I never claimed otherwise.  It was you who insisted that
such a statement of preference on our account was equivalent to the
tyranny of Hitler and Stalin.


: ... they will tell you what you apparently want to hear: that
: the momentary whims of ill-defined majorities ought to supercede
: individual rights in all areas of human endeavor, and that nobody ought to
: be permitted to do anything on his own--i.e., without obtaining the
: permission of some authoritarian lord and master.   

All this from asking someone to post his thoughts in a newsgroup 
category more relevent to his topic?

Wallace suffers from several sins, that when taken in combination,
multiply their annoyance.

He is off topic for the forum.
He is cross-posting to a bizarre array of newsgroups.
He is generating a never ending thread.

He can resolve this problem by adapting his postings to be on-topic.
That implies the end of cross-posting, which by its nature, forces
off topic postings into some newsgroups.  Whether his topic is never
ending is not necessarily bad if it is on topic for the forum.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Logajan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 03:17:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
: I read sci.physics.fusion every day and have as much right to post in
: this group as you do.  If you don't like what I have to say, don't
: read it!!!

All we are asking is that you observe the charter of this particular
forum and keep your remarks relevent to the specifics of fusion.

Sci.physics.fusion is also e-mail gatewayed (courtesy Scott Hazen Mueller
at zorch.sf-bay.com) and some people have to pay transport costs for
off-topic articles they are not interested in.  Others have to page
through dialog in their e-mail digests to get to the stuff they are
interested in.

Just asking for a little common courtesy, no more, no less.  There
are appropriate forums for your general topic, and should there be
any specific relevence of it to the topic of fusion, then your posts
in that specific regard are welcome here.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
Date: 9 Jun 1995 14:05:44 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: The specific point I was trying to make draws a destinction between
: thermal energy transport and chemical energy transport in the
: circulating electrolyte of the Cravens demo device.

Okay, I misconstrued your remarks.

So you are suggesting perhaps the chemical "burning" of the external
filter material, or the lining of the tubing, or some air-exchange
reaction of the looping electrolyte in the reservoir, etc.

Naturally these things have to be examined and excluded -- I agree
with that.  But even these things must leave chemical ash, and
four days at even 1 watt output ought to leave significant chemical
ash -- the filter ought to be corroded, the tubing discolored --
something ought to show up somewhere.

At extended runs, the chemical energy limit would be exceeded regardless
of the availabe bulk.

Yeah, I think the Cravens/Patterson demos need extended run data,
well characterized.  I told Cravens this.  But currently he is trying
to scale up the output.  It's not the direction I would have taken.
I think he has plenty of "signal" to work with, but he felt that no
one is going to accept low wattage results no matter how careful you
account for everything.  And so he is building high power devices.

He may be right -- no one will accept low power results,  he even said
that people would say that the tubing was buring or the filter was burning
or some other thing was happening -- maybe Cravens is on the right
course after all.


--
 - 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:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 9 Jun 1995 14:48:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

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

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


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

* 1) Contents

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


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

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


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

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


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

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


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

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


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

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

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

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

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

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

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

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

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

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


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

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

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

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

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


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

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

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


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

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

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


* 5) Mail Server

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

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

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


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

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

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

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


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

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

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

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

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


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

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

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


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Belgium
-------

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

Canada
------

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

Finland
-------

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

France
------

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

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

Korea
-----

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

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

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

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

Sweden
------

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

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

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

Taiwan
------

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

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

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

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

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



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / mitchell swartz /  Shrinking hydrogen---any QM way?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM way?
Subject: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:05:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) writes:

 "Obviously the most benign way to create fusion is to find
 a way to shrink neutral hydrogen atoms. This allows the nuclei to 
 get close together without feeling the electric repulsion, to the
 point where they fuse spontaneously (with a little help from 
 quantum tunneling across the remaining distance) 
 at ``room tempeprature''  (< 1000 degrees C)."

   Do you mean molecular hydrogen, or have you adopted the
Mills mechanism?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 11:10:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
     "Jed, If you spent less time berating me and more time addressing the
     questions I raise you could possibly show me up more my ignorance more
     quickly than you do."
 
And if you were to spend an hour reading original source material and looking
at schematics and data, you would learn more about the Cravens experiment than
I could teach you in a lifetime of posting e-mail messages. It is because you
flounder around in the dark that you make so many mistakes. You never do your
homework and read the literature from CETI and Cravens, so you always make
stupid mistakes.
 
I cannot imagine why you think I will spoon feed you detailed answers to
correct your mistakes, when you could correct every one of them by reading the
scientific literature. Why should I? I enjoy watching you make stupid mistakes
because you are so lazy. You "skeptics" never bother to learn anything on your
own. You depend on me for every scrap of information. That makes me look good.
It makes me look even better when you whine, and cringe, and moan that is it
all my fault that you are so ignorant! That's hysterically funny. You are too
stupid and too lazy to read the papers, and you claim it is my fault! Like I
am supposed to do all your thinking and all your homework for you. Ha!
 
 
 
     "I now know that the Cravens demo did not have a heat exchanger as
     such."
 
You would have known that 5 seconds after glancing at a schematic or photo. If
you had any familiarity with calorimeters of this class, you would have known
it even without seeing the literature.
 
 
     "What you don't seem to realize, Jed, is that if one watt is so easy to
     get rid of that we don't even have to know where it goes it follows as
     night follows day that it is also easy to take up one watt from the
     surroundings."
 
What nonsense! What impossible, incredible nonsense! How do you heat up a
small glass vial inside a Dewar container by 4 degrees C from "the
surroundings?" With magic x-ray vision? You would cook every person in the
room before you managed that! If the water was running through 60 cm of
exposed plastic hose close to an incandescent bulb it would heat up, but light
and other common forms of radiation do not penetrate a Dewar easily. That's
the whole point of putting the cell in the Dewar. Why do you think he put it
there? When night follows day, the surroundings cool down. There is not much
radiation in the dark, and you cannot magically heat up water 4 degrees in a
dark room, or in a dark, silvered, glass container.
 
Oh, I forgot. You didn't know it was inside a Dewar. You don't know any
details about it. Silly me, I thought perhaps you might be doing science, in
which case you would find out about the experiment before commenting on it.
 
 
     "The surroundings can certainly supply that energy, and you have proved
     that in your remarks!"
 
The surroundings cannot possibly. That is magic, not science.
 
 
     "What I have suggested is that the fluid carries an additional 0.1 J per
     ml as it returns to the cell, if I have my numbers right.  Check me on
     that number and tell us why it can't be so."
 
Good Grief! Yes, 0.1 J per ml. Right. For a whole day?!? For a week? For a
month? Richard, where the heck is the water getting all that energy from? What
chemical substance in the loop can supply megajoule after megajoule of energy?
Chemical fuel gets used up. Candles burn down. Batteries fade out. You cannot
extract hundreds of megajoules from a few grams of chemical fuel.
 
 
     "First question is how a filter can trap anything in solution.  Answer:
     It can't!"
 
Well, duh. Who said it can? How could it possibly?
 
 
 
     "But the obvious conclusion is that if there is chemical activity of any
     significance in the external plastic tubing, etc., we really ought to be
     asking questions about the nature of that chemical activity."
 
How much of the plastic tube do you suppose is being consumed or dissolved in
this chemical activity? 100 milligrams? 10 grams? You cannot sustain a 1 watt
heat reaction for weeks with that much chemical fuel. You cannot even sustain
it for a day. If the heat is caused by the plastic tubing dissolving and
burning up, why doesn't that happen during calibration with the joule heater?
Why doesn't it happen with gold plated beads?
 
This idea of yours is more HAND WAVING. No chemical activity of any sort using
these materials could even begin to explain the energy. Any observer can see
that that the plastic tubes are not being dissolved or burned up. They are
intact after weeks of operation. They show no signs of embrittlement or
discoloration. Plastic tubes of this type have been used in chemistry and
physics experiments for decades, and nobody has ever observed them dissolve
into unlimited megajoules of chemical fuel with normal use, in 1 molar lithium
sulfate. Furthermore, as you well know, other CF cells like Arata's have
generated *hundreds of megajoules of energy*. If the entire Arata calorimeter
was made of coal it could not begin to supply that much energy. You cannot
ignore all other cold fusion experiments and dream up some magic special case
of burning plastic tubes to explain away this one experiment. People who look
for a chemical explanation for energy releases on this scale have no concept
of what it means to do a quantitative analysis of a scientific problem. You
are so many orders of magnitude wrong -- the idea is so absurd and impossible
-- that any scientist should instantly dismiss the idea. The fact that you and
Morrison are still reaching for a chemical explanation after all these years
proves that neither of you is capable of serious, quantitative scientific
thinking.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Scott Little /  attn: Bryan Wallace.  Final Results on the Farce Vote
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: attn: Bryan Wallace.  Final Results on the Farce Vote
Date: 9 Jun 1995 14:32:58 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

The final results of the vote are as follows:

45 folks said they would like to see Farce posts disappear from spf.

ZERO folks said they would like to see Farce posts continue to appear in spf.

Several respondants expressed concern that this vote might turn into some
form of censorship.  That is DEFINITELY NOT MY INTENTION.  I am opposed 
to censorship on the Net.

All I have done here is to collect the opinions of any and all spf readers
who cared to express them and convey those opinions to Mr. Wallace along
with a REQUEST (not a demand) that he heed them and stop cross-posting 
the Farce into spf.

In my opinion, this kind of action is precisely how we should attempt to 
handle obnoxious persons on the Net WITHOUT resorting to moderation or 
censorship.

Mr. Wallace, we are all simply ASKING you to stop your cross-posting.  If you
ignore this request and continue, no harm will come to you and no action will
be taken against you.  However, you may notice a decline in your karma due
to all the bad vibes we'll be sending your way.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the vote.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / mitchell swartz /  Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:08:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <9506071357.AA18641@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

       "We are told that CF magic works because of a solid state 
   effect in the Pd lattice, but when the bulk of the Pd disappears
    things get better, right?"

  Who told you that?  The skeptics tout it with their
TB-skeptic-magic (usually combined with ignoring data),
but the data does not support this fanciful notion.  
    -----------------------------------------------------------

      "We are told that CF results have been showing constant
      improvement, but the actual experiments have been run on smaller
      and smaller samples with the results being scaled arbitrarily to 
      make the numbers big."

  Now who told you that?  The skeptics tout it with their
TB-skeptic-magic (usually combined with ignoring data),
but the data does not support this fanciful notion.  
The use of smaller quantities is for SAFETY.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

     " So it is better
     to make one watt using only 40 mg of metal
      than it is to make 10 watts using
     a gram of metal.  I suppose the best alternative is
      to make kilowatts using
     no metal and forget the solid state effects altogether."

  The use of smaller quantities is for SAFETY.
Do not push for large electrodes without warning
 individuals of the potential danger, sir.
You wouldn't suggest
that now would you, Dick?


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: attn: Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn: Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:10:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3r9jik$smg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) posts

  "My posting does not cost you anything unless you read the file!"
  "You have a very limited understanding of Internet News."
 
How do you know about his/her arrangements?

         ------------------------------
    "You need to read the free book, "

  Did read your "free book".
  There was nothing there on fusion except one word in another
context.   Do you have anything to say about fusion?    or not?

         ------------------------------
   "Cold Fusion is as much a Farce as many of 
     the other areas of 
    research in modern physics."

  Had not previously made a decision about the 
possible value of your writing.  However, 
as a result of this sentence, it appears you may be
relatively science-observation-blind or too
overworked.   Thus your work
seems much less likely to be important.  Perhaps
you might consider reading, and addressing,
more literature in this field you put down as
a "Farce" instead of posting
the same stuff repeatedly and never directing it to
fusion here [or aliens or philosophy or particles or
ufos or electromagnetics or objectivism  elsewhere,
as your cross-posts indicate you have an interest].

  Good luck if, and when,
  you consider addressing the issue at hand - fusion
either how it occurs, doesnt occur, and how to control
and use it effectively.





 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 /  Winfinity /  Re: Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misinformation about Pd
Date: 9 Jun 1995 16:40:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Marshall Dudley said:

>I would like to point out that finding other elements which have similar
or
>larger spreads does not invalidate his theory.  One would need to test
these
>other elements to see if they also exhibit any excess heat.  Of course
the
>other elements must adsorb hydrogen/deuterium and be conductive as well.

And, there must be a large enough spread of the relative percentages of
these isotopes to yield the possibility of getting energy out.  In other
words: If the needed isotopes exist but are not sufficiently abundent,
then the likelihood of their being involved in interactions with free
neutrons or other nuclei diminishes (from whatever low value would already
be expected).

I'm glad these additional constaints are noted.

Again, for those following this thread, I am just trying to see if the
"palladium as catalyst/fuel" idea has any theoretical possibilities so as
to explain the inconsistent experimental results of CF experiements to
date.

-David Schneider 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwinfinity cudlnWinfinity cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Morrison is PROUD of his vile theories
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison is PROUD of his vile theories
Date: 9 Jun 1995 20:42:58 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <R65-1Cw.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> He has written about his "regionalization" theory many times, most
> recently in his review of ICCF5:
>  
>      "In May 1989 when I was trying to organise all the cold fusion results
>      that I had collected, decided to group them  by country for convenience.
>      But was greatly astonished to find that some countries and regions had
>      mainly positive results whereas other had mainly null results. This
>      Regionalization of Results persisted with time except that some regions
>      that at first had mainly positive results had switched and now had
>      mainly null results. This is quite contrary to belief in the
>      Universality of Science."
>  
> He could not have been "greatly astonished" because if you look at his older
> publications, you will see that he has been spreading similar 
> odious ideas for years. He himself does not consider these ideas odious.

Oh, Jed, calm down. I don't know why you are making an issue
at all with this. It has nothing to do with racism. I don't know
anything about regionalization of CF results, but it is certainly 
true that in the past certain ``scientific'' results/theories have
been regionalized: consider, for example Lysenkoism in the soviet
union, N-Rays in France, Creationism in the US, etc. Is it
racisom to point out these examples of regionalized (and, 
probably not coincidentally, spurious) sciences?

It should be pretty obvious why this sort of regionalization _can_
occur (again, I don't know if it is occuring with CF): a 
``science'' (are any other theory) can be sustained when it resonates 
with the beliefs/desires/hpes of a certain culture, even if it
is in contrast to otherwise accepted facts. (The former
soviet union was well know for trying to synchronize its
science with perceived communist ideals, and similarly with Nazi
germany in trying to avoid ``jewish science'').

In the case of CF, one can see some obvious possible 
regionalizing influences: national pride in an initial positive result, 
or the need for a new energy source, which could encourage research in
certain countries (and encourage positive results to be reported
and pursued more strongly).

So, Jed---you consider all the above to be the purest, vilest racism, no?

Persoanlly, I think you are grasping at straws to try and take down
Morrison, whose anti-CF activism you don't like.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Jerome Thorel /  Is Pd stable in hot water?
     
Originally-From: Jerome Thorel <thorel@cnam.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Pd stable in hot water?
Date: 9 Jun 1995 20:49:10 GMT
Organization: Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris, France

According to a close French research source of M. Pons, the palladium 
cathode is slowly degrading itself and must be replaced after a couple 
of weeks (5-15 days). Does anybody could confirm this doubt?

Jerome Thorel     
Journaliste
Paris   


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenthorel cudfnJerome cudlnThorel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Logajan is right about Cravens/CETI tactics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logajan is right about Cravens/CETI tactics
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 17:15:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes to Dick Blue:
 
     "So you are suggesting perhaps the chemical "burning" of the external
     filter material, or the lining of the tubing, or some air-exchange
     reaction of the looping electrolyte in the reservoir, etc. . . .
     Naturally these things have to be examined and excluded -- I agree with
     that.  But even these things must leave chemical ash, and four days at
     even 1 watt output ought to leave significant chemical ash -- the filter
     ought to be corroded, the tubing discolored -- something ought to show
     up somewhere."
 
Plus, the putative chemical heat would show up with gold bead electrolysis.
For that matter, it would show up when you circulate the water without
electrolysis, and during calibration with a joule heater. Why not? During
electrolysis the effluent hydrogen and oxygen gases are removed from the
stream of electrolyte at the graduated cylinder a short distance downstream
from the cell. So only a short segment of the loop is affected; the reservoir,
tubes, filters and flowmeters in the rest of the loop are in the same state,
exposed to the same chemicals, whether electrolysis runs or not.
 
Another thing: these tubes and filters are off-the-shelf items from chemical
supply houses. They have been used for decades. How come nobody has ever
noticed you can get megajoules of energy by running 1 M lithium sulfate
through them?
 
Actually, if we were doing science here, it would be up to Dick Blue to prove
his point. He should set up some tubes & filters and run lithium sulfate
through them, and show us sustained heat generation at 1 or 2 watts for a
week. If that's his hypothesis, let him prove it. It is not up to Cravens to
check out every crackpot notion that people dream up. The blank run with gold
and the calibration runs already prove Blue is wrong -- there is no need to
waste any more time on the "chemistry" hypothesis.
 
 
     "Yeah, I think the Cravens/Patterson demos need extended run data, well
     characterized."
 
I don't see why. If two weeks does not convince "skeptics" then two months
will not convince them either. In point of fact, CETI has run some cells for
months, but not continuously. They shut them off at night. The cells turn on
again the next day after 10 minutes or so. To me, that is even more impressive
than a two month continuous run. Lots of people have done continuous runs,
some of them producing hundreds of megajoules. A robust cell that turns off
and turns on again is better.
 
 
     "He may be right -- no one will accept low power results,  he even said
     that people would say that the tubing was burning or the filter was
     burning or some other thing was happening -- maybe Cravens is on the
     right course after all."
 
Yup. Cravens has heard everything, and so have I. Either one of us could have
predicted in our sleep that a "skeptic" like Dick Blue would say it was water
friction, the filter, or burning tubing. That is why Cravens worked out the
water friction equations in detail beforehand. The only base Blue has not
touched yet is the "cigarette lighter effect." That is kind of difficult to
justify with only 40 mg of mostly nickel, but it is no worse than water
friction.
 
CETI is definitely on the right course. Scaling up is the only way to go.
We need to scale up and make self-sustaining, stand alone power reactors. Then
we need to demonstrate them. That will not convince Blue, Morrison or Jones --
months after Edison began stringing electric lights outside his lab and
attracting crowds of people the scientists still said he was crazy. But CETI
is going around demoing the cell already, and convincing corporations. They
are the the people who count, not the academic scientists. We need to start
selling CF generators in the stores, and begin putting the oil companies and
electric companies out of business. That still will not convince Dick Blue;
he will still say it is a chemical reaction or a mistake. But it will convince
the rest of the world that whatever CF may be, it's great stuff.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Tom Droege /  Re: Is Pd stable in hot water?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Pd stable in hot water?
Date: 9 Jun 1995 21:11:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3rac46$2t4@sheckley.cnam.fr>, Jerome Thorel <thorel@cnam.fr> says:
>
>According to a close French research source of M. Pons, the palladium 
>cathode is slowly degrading itself and must be replaced after a couple 
>of weeks (5-15 days). Does anybody could confirm this doubt?

Very strange report.  The choice of the electrolyte in the original 
P&F work was chosen because it was a very very stable system.  I have
had cathodes run for four months or so with no change other than the 
distortion caused by the H/D loading.  

This could be evidence that they have changed their electrolyte.  What 
say Dieter?

Tom Droege
>
>Jerome Thorel     
>Journaliste
>Paris   
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 16:24:01 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3r886d$2v3@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
> : attempts to control Mr. Wallace's posting decisions--that ill-defined
> : "majorities" have the right to dictate the personal decisions of
> : individuals--is as tyrannical as Stalin or Hitler could ever have hoped to
> : be.
> 
> Puhleeezee!  We are using persuasion rather than coercion.  If you are
> consistent in believing in freedom of content in speech, then you have
> absolutely no basis to critize the condemnation content of our speech.
> You are holding a contradictory position -- freedom of speech for some,
> but not for others.  Make up you mind.
> 
> --
>  - 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    -

John, you apparently don't know what persuasion is. Persuasion involves
argument--i.e., the use of evidence and logic to change opinion. That's
not what you guys are doing. You are merely conveying your preferences to
Mr. Wallace, along with a bogus claim that your gang is bigger than his.
(The claim is bogus because people who believe in live and let live aren't
responding to your poll.) Your implicit assumption that he ought to give a
damn--i.e., that he is vulnerable to non-rational bullying and
intimidation--has been refuted by the facts: he has, quite properly and
more politely than you deserve, told you to kiss off. Hopefully, this will
serve as a lesson to you: there are people in this world who aren't
subject to non-rational bullying and intimidation. If you want your news
screened by a poll-taking gang of bully boys, you are a baby and you don't
belong in an unmoderated newsgroup. You need a news source which provides
an information daddy to tuck you into bed at night. To that end, here is
my suggestion: drop your internet connection and subscribe to your local
authoritarian, state-worshipping newspaper. There, I can absolutely
guarantee that they will tell you what you apparently want to hear: that
the momentary whims of ill-defined majorities ought to supercede
individual rights in all areas of human endeavor, and that nobody ought to
be permitted to do anything on his own--i.e., without obtaining the
permission of some authoritarian lord and master.   

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 9 Jun 1995 02:52:58 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>In article <3r2il7$b8s@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
>> In article <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry  
>Merriman) says:
>> >

>But we must remember the ZPF is very weak (which is
>why the Casimir effect is far two small to ever detect), and thus
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the resulting amount of shrinkage would also be very small, too
>small to promote any significant fusion.
>
The Casimir effect has been experimentally verified. The orginal experiment was 
performed in 1958 by Sparnaay.

The reference for this work is...

M.Y. Sparnaay, Physica 24, 751 (1958)

There have many more experiments since confirming the orginal result. There is
some speculation that the bonding of wires to connecting pads on integerated
circuits is aided by the Casimir effect. I don't know if this has been proved
or not.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Martin Sevior /  Morrison's Article.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's Article.
Date: 9 Jun 1995 03:01:18 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

The article by Morrison contains a number of unsubstaniated claims made
by "informed sources". 

Can anyone categorically state that EPRI has stopped funding CNF or that
Pons has definitely left the field?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / J Biberian /  science power and religion
     
Originally-From: Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: science power and religion
Date: 10 Jun 1995 00:15:43 GMT
Organization: Faculte des Sciences Marseille, France

Science Power and Religion

Jean-Paul Biberian 
Email: jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu

The rejection of "Cold Fusion" by the scientific 
establishment, in spite of obvious experimental facts, is 
and will be analysed for many years by sociologists as a 
unique case of strong splitting of the scientific 
community into two very opposite sides. However even 
though this case is quite unique in modern history, it is 
not unique if we simply change the word science by 
religion.

Let us see first what the parallels between modern 
science and religion are. First of all, as religion, science 
is composed of three categories of people: there are two 
minorities and a silent majority. The pure ones who 
engage in religion because of strong and sincere belief 
are mirrored in science by those who love and dream 
about science, and whose jobs are more of a hobby, and 
dream about it their whole lives. They do not go to work 
and do what they do for pleasure just as true believers 
spend most of their time serving their God. The second 
minority is composed of people who are only interested 
in power. The source of their power is not important, 
what they want, aspire, conspire is to slowly go up the 
ladder of hierarchy as high as they can. They are the 
apparachicks of the system. They end up being scientists 
not because their love of science, but being good at math, 
physics, or chemistry, science is their natural way of 
expressing their desire of power. It holds true in religion 
where politics plays a vital role and where the structure 
itself is more important than the message. Finally for the 
vast majority science is a job, an assignment, and their 
primary goal is to feed their families, go on vacations 
and have an overall quiet life. The vast majority of people 
in religion behave identically, they do it as a habit, for 
mental security, and don't question themselves. Just like 
their counterpart in science, they follow the main stream 
without questionning. 

The other striking ressemblance between science and old 
days religion, at least in the western world, is the need 
of the economico-political power. In the past, kings 
needed religion since their very existence came from God 
and used it to defend themselves. Priests were the ones 
who could read the 'book' and interpret it. That is why it 
was not good for the ones in power that everyone could 
read the Bible by themselves. The invention of the 
printing press by Gutemberg was the starting point of the 
reform since more people could read the Bible. It was in 
essence the first information age revolution (as a matter 
of fact the second killed the communist system), 
everyone had access to the important information, the 
Bible, and could interpret it his own way. Since religion 
was the truth and nothing but the truth, priests could 
protect the political power of the time. The kings needed 
religion as a protection for themselves against any idea 
of contestation of their power. The Galileo episode is 
striking since at one point someone did challenge the 
interpretation of the truth given by the priests. We know 
what happened to him. Similarly in our modern society 
the economico-political power uses science as a 
protection. Only a small fraction of society can 
understand and analyse the scientific data. So politicians 
are using official science to interpret the facts, and once 
a fact is scientifically explained nothing can be said to 
argue it. Science holds the truth, and therefore its 
conclusions cannot be questionned.

But just as religion needed the official political power to 
develop, modern science needs its financial back up. 
Religions that are not associated to power are treated as 
sects, just like the pathological science. 

Another interesting comparison between science and 
religion is their inability to accept changes. Everytime a 
Master comes and bring his teachings, the religious 
power of the time rejects him. This is quite natural since 
the coming of the expected Master will result in a change 
in power. So they always reject him and even try to 
destroy him. The same happens with scientists. Because 
some scientists of the second category have established 
an equivalent of the biblic power, they will loose their 
privilege and credibility by accepting that someone else, 
coming from nowhere brings a new theory, that will take 
the very root of what they have believed, teached and 
advised so far. They therefore reject him and his theory. 

So what follows when a revolution of the type just 
described happens? First a minority of people of the first 
category will adhere to it because they are not interested 
in power, they are simply sincere. Then a strong 
opposition from the powerful ones who are just 
interested in power and their commitments to the 
political establishment tries to destroy it. In essence 
they do not want to loose their credibility vis a vis the 
political power. Finally, the vast majority, the silent one, 
that has no opinion and cares less about it, will wait and 
see who wins. If it happens that the new scientific 
knowledge is winning, they will change their mind. 

However, the worst is that the second category of people 
will either die because they are old already or will 
accept the new paradigm and will take power again.

Another interesting fact is the lack of support for cold 
fusion from the 'greens'. The paradox is that even though 
cold fusion has all the attributes of the perfect 
ecological source of energy: no waste, no green house 
effect, accessible to everybody, the seed does not 
germinate in this section of the political power. The 
reason is actually quite simple. After religion and 
science, ecology wants to take the position. Basically 
ecology wants to replace science by a moral reference 
that is missing since the dismiss of religion. In effect 
the idea is that ressources on earth are not unlimited and 
that we should not waste them. The most important one 
being energy. But with cold fusion we can leave the lights 
on all the time if we wish to without guilt, the resources 
are unlimited. So with cold fusion in this fight for power, 
science is winning again, and this is bad for ecology, 
having some of their more powerful arguments 
invalidated.

The established scientific community has criticized Pons 
and Fleischmann for their disclosure of their discovery 
through a press conference, shading doubts on the 
validity of their discovery.. This is however a false 
argument. It is as if when Christ comes he must ask 
permission from the Church to teach! That reminds me of 
the person who has to announce that someone very dear 
just died. You can take all the oratory precautions, the 
final result is the same, this person is dead. A revolution 
in science has happened, we are witnessing it, just let us 
enjoy it. It is easy to recognize dead masters, but it is 
much more difficult to acknowledge living ones. We are 
all very critical of the  people who resisted past 
revolutions: Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, 
and so many others, but when it comes to our turn it is 
much more difficult to decide, we do not have the 
perspective of time to filter out wrong choices. And even 
if we were wrong, I think that it would have been a 
wonderful experience anyway, that has brought a 
wonderful breeze of freedom in our life. 

So the world has changed, there are no more kings who 
descend from gods but democracies that use science to 
justify their actions. The priests have little power, but 
established science has replaced them. Sooner or later 
the world wil accept cold fusion and a new cycle will 
begin.

The three categories mentionned also apply to many other 
fields: military, art, fashion, cooking etc..., but the 
connection with power exists only between religion and 
science.

This essay is maybe a little harsh, the three categories 
are not clearly cut, and there are grey areas between 
them. Some people might change categories with time and 
maturation. 


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjpb cudfnJean-Paul cudlnBiberian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 10 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
