1995.07.11 / 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: 11 Jul 1995 13:02:56 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:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 /   /  Institute for Free Energy, Russia
     
Originally-From: "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Institute for Free Energy, Russia
Date: 11 Jul 1995 12:03:08 +0400
Organization: Alexander V. Frolov, Private Account


                THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE ENERGY
              International MegaScience Academy
          P.O.Box 37, 193024, St.-Petersburg, Russia

Dear Sirs,

I'm glad to inform you about creation of The Institute for Free Energy.
It is non-professinal organization outside of state Russia Academy. It
is the subdivision of International MegaScience Academy, JSC, placed in
Petrozavodsk, Karelian Republic of Russia. Structure of Academy:
Head office of IMSA: Russia, 185031, Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk,
Moscow's str.,13-6. President of IMSA Mr. Victor M. Jurkin.
Representation of IMSA are placed in Moscow, St.-Petersburg, Kiev, Tumen.
Main activity in next directions: system optimization of infrastructures,
energetics, ecology, international megascience and educational activity,
realization of unified theory of World.
Mission of MegaScience is optimization and correction of world science
according to Laws of Natural Correctness. Glogal Ecology. Transfer of
Humanity to Space Mentality.
Business activity of IMSA: international trade in high-technology, in
"know-how" and patents, science conferences, introduction of new
technologies.


                 The Institute for Free Energy
is placed in St.-Petersburg, Russia. Our activity have the goal to develop
direct contacts between inventors and customers, both theoretists and
experimantalists. Our interests are the next:

1. Discussion about over-unit systems, Free energy systems, Systems
producing work and creating power in load without any mass-fuel.
( About space-time utilization as fuel look in next point.) Perpetuum mobile.
Zero-point fluctuations as free energy source.
   In general words, discussion about possibility to create Power from
Energy, from potential energy, from time flow energy. How to change the
form of Energy to create the Power in load without loss for primary
source of energy. Systems with permanent magnets and electrostatical
systems for over-unit application.

2. Gravity. Local space-time curvature ( space curvature and time rate
in local system these are different from planet space-time system ). Gravity
is defined as result of motion of object in space. Inertioidal system
for inertial propulsion. Any type systems for non-reactive movement. Electro-
gravity and transformation of gravitational field in electricity.

3. Discussion by cause-effect relations. Theory and experiments of Kozyrev N.
1946-1991. How to use the flow of time as source of power similar to star's
source of power, by Kozyrev. Waves of density of time ( density of space
free energy ).

4. Discussion by Tesla's approach to electromagnet "free vibrations" for
over-unit. Resonance transformers for o/u. Single terminal ( power load that
use only one wire from source of oscillations ) technology for o/u.
Longituginal waves as Waves of density of energy in single wire ( antenn ).
Standing waves as free energy source.

5. Investigations for syntropy operating systems as systems are producing
work when the Dispersed Heat is concentrated from outside area into inner
area of local system. Heat Pump. Syntropy and reverse time effect.

6. Water-fuel systems. Special interest in stationary power system that can
produce electric power output about 10 KWatts - 100 KWatts. There are some
interest to such sort devices from Russian customers.

        Now you have it. Please, sent for me your proposals for real
        work to develop experiments,  introduce results,  patent new
        ideas. Welcome any help. We  have  not funds at all. We have
        information about inventors and customers and we hope  begin
        commercialization of new energy and gravity / time projects.

We look forward to hearing from you the reply by personal e-mail for us.
        Alexander V. Frolov
        Director
        The Institute for Free Energy, St.-Petersburg, Russia
                       alex@frolov.spb.su




cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenalex cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:21:34 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 10 Jul 1995 15:19:44 GMT, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:

>In <1995Jul9.024703.5859@pinet.aip.org> ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong) writes: 

>>    The propulsion mechanism of infinitely advanced beings has been
>>    thoroughly studied and explained.

>This is our last warning!
>Quit deciminating this information!
Was that decimating, or disseminating?:-)

>The Federation

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@pop.netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Al Fargnoli /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: afargnol@spd.dsccc.com (Al Fargnoli)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,s
i.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 11 Jul 1995 14:12:34 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA

In article <3trl6i$qa3@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Kevin Sterner <sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu> wrote:
:In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>,
:"Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk> writes:
:
:> Sorry to depart somewhat from the topic, but it seems appropriate here ...
:> 
:> Not only are there no quarks, but no electrons, neutrons, protons nor
:> anything else ...  as far as we know.  Physics merely creates models of
:> reality, and when the behaviour of our models matches the experimentally
:> perceived behaviour of reality then we have "progress".  Jolly useful it
:> is too, but no physicist would claim that the component parts of his
:> models actually exist in reality;  when pressed, they'll tell you that,
:> at most, "electrons exist" is just a shorthand for a very unweildy claim
:> that "there is an excellent match between the behaviour of the electron
:> model and experimental evidence".  As evidence accumulates, we get ever
:> more confident of the power of our models (as they say, "100 million TVs
:> can't be wrong"), but this is as far as our work can take us.  It's not
:> a weakness, far from it:  it is this very separation between models and
:> reality that allows science to throw out the old when new understanding
:> is achieved.
:> 
:> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
:> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
:> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 
:> 
:> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
:> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.
:
:You are completely wrong.  OF COURSE electrons exist, regardless of

[rest of Kevin's nonsense deleted]

What Dr. Artym stated so well is _exactly_ what I was taught
in high school _and_ at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Are you the same Kevin that doesn't understand GR?  Maybe you
should consult some of the physics professors at UPenn when you
don't understand what you find on sci.physics.*

Al Fargnoli
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenafargnol cudfnAl cudlnFargnoli cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Power Meters/Crest Factor
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Meters/Crest Factor
Date: 11 Jul 1995 08:27:07 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <USE2PCB140316427@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
> 
.......
....
...

> 
......

>Once again it is the current that is important, not the voltage, except that
>the voltage will drive the current (ignoring ohmic losses) according to
>i = integral(V/L dv/dt).
> 
>-> For motors, the effect is more obvious under
>-> lightly loaded conditions, where it is not masked by load current
>-> required to produce torque.  It is NOT true that the current "should be
>-> almost a pure sine wave", as can be verified by anyone with an
>-> oscilloscope and a good current probe.
> 
>We were not talking about near no-load conditions.  At near full load the
>current draw will mask the very small crest factor current, unless the
>ferromagnetic device is nearing saturation.

Who is not talking about near no-load conditions?  I don't know what
load conditions we are talking about.  I have not heard any discussion
about motor ratings and loading in the cases we are supposed to be
discussing.  This discussion started because Rothwell stated that the
Dranetz power meter was accurate under all conditions, and I pointed
out that crest factor can destroy that accuracy.  It doesn't take
no-load conditions to cause a few percent error with many motor-power
meter combinations.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Ben Newsam /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 13:15:56 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

tdp@ix.netcom.com "Tom Potter " writes:

> It is my perception that tit^n for two tats works best,
> and in the long run, makes for a better society.

Yup. This is my answer to mad bombers, too.

> You can thank the mad bombers throughout history,
> more than you can thank the Kings, 
> for shaping a better society.
> 
> They keep tyrants and bullies honest.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is my *definition* of mad bombers. Are we a better society for the
Oklahoma bombing, and earlier in the UK, the murders of Lord Mountbatten,
Airey Neave, and Norris McWhirter amongst others?

P.S. The relationship tit^n for tat*n only works
when ((tit > 2) and (n > (tat/tit)))  :-)

Er, no, sorry, I think there should be a log expression in the above!
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 233 2071   Tel: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Doug Merritt /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 16:27:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3tsqjc$6h8@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>If you irritate enough mad bombers, the probability that one of them
>will target you becomes higher. I try to monitor the feedback to my
>interactions with the world to minimize the risks I assume.

So do I. But consider the unabomber. He kills people simply because
they are in science or engineering or business professions. Your
comment made it sound like you perhaps sympathized with him,
which I still do not understand. I mean, you *could* get nailed,
regardless of what you do.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Bill Page /  Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
Date: 11 Jul 1995 16:58:37 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <3ts304$5v9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
>
>Introduction
>
>For the 3rd series of tests, we modified our Potapov device 
>(a Yusmar-1) by adding a "bypass" line that connects the 
>vortex chamber to the outlet end of the cavitation tube and 
>a diameter reduction at the outlet end of the cavitation 
>tube.  Both of these features can be seen in various 
>photographs of the Potapov device (i.e. in Infinite Energy 
>#2 and on John Logajan's web page).  We used the photographs 
>and information obtained during Chris Tinsley's visit to 
>Moldavia to design these modifications.
>
> ...
>
>The Potapov device is mounted in a vertical orientation 
>(with the vortex chamber on top) above an open 55 gallon 
>barrel.  The outlet, which points straight down, is 
>positioned so it is submerged a few inches under the water 
>level in the barrel to prevent air entrainment. The Potapov 
>device, which has a 2" ID inlet port, is fed by a 7.5 hp 
>centrifugal pump.

It is interesting to note that you have apparently mounted the
device "upside down" compared to the photos. Could such an
orientation possibly interfere in some way with the operation
of the vortex? Elsewhere in your 3rd report you mention the
operation of the recirulation line (lets agree to call it that).
In the case of the photo, it would be feeding slightly warmer
water from the top of the vortex tube back down to the bottom
of the vortex; in your case it feeds the warmer water back up
to the top.

Notice also in the photos that the outlet water from the top
of the vortex tube does a 90 deg. bend before heading for the
heat radiators. If there is a significant vortex action going
on inside the vortex tube, the exact dynamic behaviour of the
outlet might be an important factor. We could imagine such
effects as pressure oscillations (sound waves in the water flow)
which might be damped by the way you discharge the outlet directly
into the tank.

Cheers,
Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
Date: 10 Jul 1995 20:35:04 GMT
Organization: Space Exploration Associates

Dear Scott,
	Thank you for a series of fine postings on your research 
on the Potapov device.  One of the best uses of the Internet is 
when an experiment is shared with a community.  Thank you.
	I can't help but look over your shoulder, however.  One 
of the questions that I have is whether it is possible to 
generate excess chemical heat simply by ultrasonic cavitation in 
this or the Griggs device.  Even a rather small amount of 
corrosion would result in significant excess energy based on the 
heat of formation of most metal oxides.

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH

-- 

Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 17:22:36 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh


	i understand your point here, but i think that the ad-hoc
	basis of physics is as much its strength as its weakness.

	that physics has managed to get so damn far without much of
	a philosophical basis suggests that such a basis is not
	quite as important as philosophers would like to believe.

	it could be that the problems with modern physics, and the 
	process of getting its house in some sort of order, could be 
	solving problems that philosophers have been arguing the toss 
	over for years.  so the tone of your post - that physicists 
	have done something wrong - seems a little misplaced.

	try making a tv with philosophy.  you'll see that physics
	is a bit tougher than you think...
	
	andrew

-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  absorption of hydrogen by palladium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: absorption of hydrogen by palladium
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:57 -0500 (EST)

I have been working on a hypothesis on cold fusion in palladium.  I am a little
confused on the absorption of hydrogen (or deuterium) in palladium.  I had been
assuming (apparently incorrectly) that palladium would absorb hydrogen up to
the point where there were an equal number of hydrogen atoms as palladium
atoms.  I assumed that this was 100% loaded.  However when I look it up in the
CRC handbook I find that they indicate the hydrogen may be forming Pd2H.  If
this is the case then 100% loading would have only 50% as many atoms of
hydrogen.  So I started looking at the sites where hydrogen could be stored in
a hex crystal (I am assuming palladium is a hex crystal, I have been unable to
find any reference to the crystal structure).  What I found was that in a two
dimensional array of hex atoms, there are twice as many sites for hydrogen as
there are atoms.  Try as I may, I am unable to fully visualize a solid hex
crystal, so I am not sure if there would be twice as many sites, or 4 times as
many sites as atoms in the solid.

Thus at this time I am unsure if 100% loading would be 50%, 100%, 200% or 400%
of the number of palladium atoms.  I have not seen this discussed here before.
Any enlightmentment would be appreciated.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 11 Jul 1995 19:55:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <dougDBK8EB.9vB@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes: 

>
>In article <3tsqjc$6h8@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>>If you irritate enough mad bombers, the probability that one of them
>>will target you becomes higher. I try to monitor the feedback to my
>>interactions with the world to minimize the risks I assume.
>
>So do I. But consider the unabomber. He kills people simply because
>they are in science or engineering or business professions. Your
>comment made it sound like you perhaps sympathized with him,
>which I still do not understand. I mean, you *could* get nailed,
>regardless of what you do.
>	Doug

That's what makes life interesting.

It would be a dull world
if the Uncertainty Principle weren't operative.
and if we were magic. 

The "bathtub" curve plots the failure rate of most complex objects.
It has a steep "infant mortality" rate,
a low level of "random failures"
and a not so steep "wear out" slope ( where I am now. ).

I can accept the possibility of a random failure,
and the certainty of wear out.

I don't sympathize with random mad bombers,
but I do think that mad bombers with a short fuse
serve a very useful social purpose.

They inhibit tyrants and bullies,
who don't know if they are dealing with a land mine,
or a patsy they can push around.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 / Walter R /  THIS ISN'T A CRACKPOT, this is a wery new theory.
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THIS ISN'T A CRACKPOT, this is a wery new theory.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:12:43 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


Quantum Mechanics is dead.

Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >> 

The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary 
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published 
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE".


INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " 
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, 
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical 
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, 
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E = m c^2  
and  Planck's energy  E = h v, we make the hypothesis that all 
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, 
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the 
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. 

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a 
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other 
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the 
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass 
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce 
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. 

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that 
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,  
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction 
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between 
the maxi-bodies, and prevent any indiscriminate increase of masses.  

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry
Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an 
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the 
possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted 
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of 
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave 
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.   

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic  " chirality's properties " 
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles
we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION 
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent 
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, 
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept 
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. 

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic interactions are 
absent, because are absent the waves that characterize electrical 
interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in act.
From this different view we can support an original explication
of Cold Fusion.  

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that 
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler 
wavelength on the specific orbit. 

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant
of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of  two relativistic Doppler 
wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions
on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters
that condition their wave resonance states. 

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION 
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional 
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you be able.

                         Walter E. R. Cassani
**************************************************
                   cassani@linux.infosquare.it

     For FTP of  " The Wave Theory of the Field "
    <<  ftp.infosquare.it  >>  in  pub/theory/ 
     Files: wtf-1.doc , wtf-2.doc  =  1.7 Mb 
     in Microsoft Word 6.
               
 For the Theory in W W Web, with formulae and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

**************************************************
 








cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Scott Little /  Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
Date: 11 Jul 1995 23:48:56 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3tuajt$oln@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page) says:

>It is interesting to note that you have apparently mounted the
>device "upside down" compared to the photos. 


On p 34 (I believe) of IE2 there are two photos, the top one shows the
one you're referring to where the inlet is at the bottom.

The lower photo on that page, however, show the device in the same
orientation that I am running.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Barry Merriman correctly identifies the problem:  I'm not talking to 
Potapov!  I have tried but I can't seem to get through.  It is obvious
that I must try harder.  

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: Universal time per charge constant, derived.
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Universal time per charge constant, derived.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 21:23:11 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <3tp2d7$ash@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I would like to correct an error I made in my first post on the
>"charge per time constant", and show how this constant is derived.
>

[algebra deleted...]

>So the correct universal charge per time ( U ) constant is:
>
>U = ( 2 * permittivity * C^6 / G )^.5 = 1.3881044 X 10^25 amps
>
>As can be seen, 2 * permittivity / C^3 is a universal constant,
>much like G / C^3.
>
>I would appreciate any feedback regarding typos or other
>errors in this post. Please email me if you are reluctant
>to make a public comment.
>

What's the point, implication, consequence, etc. of THIS constant?

It's a well known fact that all the constants in the physics handbooks
can be combined in quiet arbitrary and even RANDOM ways to yield
entirely new constants. But to what avail? Where are you going with #?

Actually, this manipulation of constants also works for constants that
are NOT in the physics handbooks. Quiet a curious fact...hmmm....

Mahipal,
|meforce>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.12 /   /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: phaethon01@aol.com (Phaethon01)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 12 Jul 1995 00:11:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

     Now, wait a minute.  I might remind you that physics itself was once
known as "natural philosophy".  I'm not going to go running for my
dictionary here, but I can say that "philosophy" has a much broader
definition that mystics like Schopenhauer have given it.  If there was no
Aristotle, there would be no physics.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

-Christopher VanZele
"I AM!"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenphaethon01 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / John Vetrano /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: 11 Jul 1995 01:22:03 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <DB992G.8KE@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>   In Message-ID: <9507051618.AA21334@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> 
> -"High loading of the PdD lattice is supposed to increase the number of
> -interstitials.  Is this something that can be varified experimentally?"
> 
> Conservation of mass, isn't it?
>  what does not go into gas, and does not
> remain in the solution, enters the metal.
> 
>   do you disagree with conservation of mass, Dick?
> 

I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
violate conservation of mass.  

Question for either Mitchell Swartz or anyone else in the know.  Our
library does not have access to the CF literature (i.e. the conference
proceedings) but I have been curious for some time if anyone has done
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) studies of the metal before or
after a CF reaction.  This technique gives a direct look at the lattice
and can tell you many things about the processes that have occurred
there.  If you have any specific papers or researchers that have done this
I would appreciate any information.  Thanks in advance.


Regards,

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Doug Merritt /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 01:32:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3tsdpu$bp7@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>1. Although I appreciate mad bombers, I am not one.

That's hard to understand; would you appreciate a mad bomber who
made *YOU* a target, or is your appreciation limited to the ones
that victimize people other than you?

Ethics are best symmetrical.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 11 Jul 1995 03:19:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <dougDBJ2xF.IHD@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes: 

>In article <3tsdpu$bp7@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>>1. Although I appreciate mad bombers, I am not one.
>
>That's hard to understand; would you appreciate a mad bomber who
>made *YOU* a target, or is your appreciation limited to the ones
>that victimize people other than you?
>
>Ethics are best symmetrical.
>	Doug
>-- 
>Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
>Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
>
>Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
>Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
>

If you irritate enough mad bombers, the probability that one of them
will target you becomes higher. I try to monitor the feedback to my
interactions with the world to minimize the risks I assume.

But mad bombers, like dither and friction are facts of life.
And death.

American Sex Club - Long standing member.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
Date: 11 Jul 1995 03:29:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ts304$5v9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> little@eden.com (Scott Little)  
writes:

> It is possible that this 
> flow of water into the center of the vortex is a vital 
> requirement for the Potapov effect.  In future tests we will 
> probably try a smaller bypass line.
> 

Is there a Potapov *effect*?

That is, is there a clear, *independent* signature for the purported
excess energy mode? If not, I suspect you will always be
in doubt about whther you reached the right operating regime,
especially since you are not able to work closely with the
progenitors of the device. I.e. if the definition of the 
excess heat mode is either (a) you actually observe excess heat, or
(b) the device maker says you are in the right mode, it is
either way hard to refute the claims of the existence
of a excess heat mode. Critics can just say you missed 
the right regime.

The intriguiging thing about the Griggs device is that it
has an unambigous independent signature---large drop in input power---for
its anomolous steam mode. Presumably if you see that, you are
in the purported excess heat regime, and so if you achieve that mode
experimentally, but do not see excess heat, that would convincingly
negate the Griggs claims.


So, is there any such signature for the Potapov device? If not, 
the only way to adequately address the excess heat question will
be to either (a) actually observe excess heat, or (b) work very
closely with those who claim to achieve excess heat, and get them to
``certify'' your set-up. Much more tinkering around without such
certification will probably be a waste of your time.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Migma Reactor?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Migma Reactor?
Date: 11 Jul 1995 02:17:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <-0907952142030001@ip-salem2-28.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
>In article <DBEAwn.9C1@nntpa.cb.att.com>, gfp <gfp@docunet.mv.att.com> wrote:
>
>> A proposed device for inducing D-D fusion mentioned in the literature
>(occasionally) 
>> is the "migma reactor". Is there any written reference material on its
>principle of 
>> (proposed?) operation? Someone in the Princeton-Rutgers community is its
>inventor, I 
>> beleive.
>
>Bogdan Maglich is the name that comes to mind.  I believe it had a figure
>8 design.  Maglich was able to convince some (by now very unhappy)
>investors that what he wanted to do was good science.  Sometimes one can
>loot the gov't and sometimes one can loot the gullible rich.

I would tread lightly here; Maglich is still around.  Last I heard of him
was about a year ago; he was trying to persuade Congress that TFTR
was totally misinterpreting their fusion measurements and was actually
making megawatts of fusion power by bombarding the reactor vessel
walls with the neutral beams!  (For the record, (a) the neutral beams
are almost completely absorbed within the plasma, and (b) there's no
way in hell you'd get the sort of fusion outputs TFTR gets from
beam-target
fusion with the available beam powers.)

I hope someday to have a section on Migma-type (self-colliding particle
beams) devices written up in the FAQ; perhaps by the end of the summer.
It is worth pointing out that they weren't aiming for D-D fusion, but
aneutronic fusion (p-B11 or D-He3; note that with D-He3 they can
reduce the D-D side chain using the colliding-beam geometry, so that
D's don't collide much with high enough relative energy to fuse much).

There should be some articles on both of these topics in the sunsite
archives from early or mid 1994.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 04:40:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <js_vetrano-1007951815080001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
 js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)) wrote:

    > Conservation of mass, isn't it?
    >  what does not go into gas, and does not
    > remain in the solution, enters the metal.
-I just wanted to point out that these atoms can form small bubbles in the
-microstructure of the Pd.  It is quite common.  Therefore, they would not
-be present in the interstices of the lattice, but the situation does not
-violate conservation of mass.  

If you draw a surface area surrounding and enclosing the
entire cathode, there are flux terms representing any
and all deuteron mass transfer from the solution to
 the metal (and leaving too on the a microscopic basis).

The penetration of that area (consider Gauss' law) by
D or D+   or D2 must all be counted, including that which
goes to the gas (or hopefully to fusion in a much much smaller
flux; but that is assumed to be 0 outside of the metal)

You might, as an exercise, add up the fluxes at the barrier
to the electrode (total surface integral), including their
origins by electrophoretic movements and diffusion,
and then  throw in charge transfer, mass conservation
(Gauss' law again) and the wee possibility of that non-trivial
fusion flux and see how they are related.


-Question for either Mitchell Swartz or anyone else in the know.  Our
-library does not have access to the CF literature (i.e. the conference
-proceedings) but I have been curious for some time if anyone has done
-Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) studies of the metal before or
-after a CF reaction.  This technique gives a direct look at the lattice
-and can tell you many things about the processes that have occurred
-there.  If you have any specific papers or researchers that have done this
-I would appreciate any information.  Thanks in advance.

-Regards,
-John Vetrano   js_vetrano@pnl.gov

Yes.  and your comments are correct.
There are SEM pictures in the first ref below if memory serves,
and more morpho data in the second.  

suggest SCI CITATIONS on the these as a start

D.R. ROLISON, P. P. TRZASKOMA, "Morphological Differences between
 Hydrogen-Loaded and Deuterium-loaded Palladium as observed by SEM", 
 J. Electroanal. Chem., 287, 375 (1990

Matsumoto, T. and K. Kurokawa,
   Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, 323-329 (1991)

[Despite the attacks of the TBskeptics against autoradiography, it too
is another means to examine with a direct view of the lattice.
Unless the spectrum analyzer is connected to flying spot scanner
or such, the spatial data might be lost.]

  Best wishes.

   Mitchell Swartz 


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Wayne Price /  The Golden Anniversary of Trinity (Atomic Age)
     
Originally-From: SUCOR@i-link.net (Wayne Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Golden Anniversary of Trinity (Atomic Age)
Date: 11 Jul 1995 04:54:21 GMT
Organization: SUCOR

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Atomic Age.  In the desert of
New Mexico on July 16, 1945, the culimination of the work of the largest
compilation of scientists the world has ever known resulted in the first
atomic blast at 5:29:46 MWT (Mountain War Time).  

J. Robert Oppenheimer is standing before the bellowing mushroom cloud at
008 seconds after detenation.  Oppenheimer after observing the results 
of his creation quoted an ancient Hindu text, "Now I am become death,
the destroyer of worlds".

Check out this Fractal Design color art work at:

        .alt.binaries.pictures.misc

Comments welcomed!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenSUCOR cudfnWayne cudlnPrice cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 11 Jul 1995 20:04:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <805468556snz@microser.demon.co.uk> Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk> writes: 

>
>tdp@ix.netcom.com "Tom Potter " writes:
>
>> It is my perception that tit^n for two tats works best,
>> and in the long run, makes for a better society.
>
>Yup. This is my answer to mad bombers, too.
>
>> You can thank the mad bombers throughout history,
>> more than you can thank the Kings, 
>> for shaping a better society.
>> 
>> They keep tyrants and bullies honest.
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is my *definition* of mad bombers. Are we a better society for the
>Oklahoma bombing, and earlier in the UK, the murders of Lord Mountbatten,
>Airey Neave, and Norris McWhirter amongst others?
>
>P.S. The relationship tit^n for tat*n only works
>when ((tit > 2) and (n > (tat/tit)))  :-)
>
>Er, no, sorry, I think there should be a log expression in the above!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
>Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 233 2071   Tel: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
>Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mad bombers aren't always right,
but then neither is the Pentium.

I select N based on my reading of my offender.
I found that sometimes, 
I can use an N less than one to make a point,
with my children, grandchildren, employees and students.

Sometimes, just raising my eyebrows 
or shruging my shoulders did the job.

Then I have seen people, I had to beat bloody to get my point across.

Actually, "tit" has two components.
Force and time.

I have a grandchild, who will not bend under the greatest force,
but who will finally yield if a small, constant force is applied.
When he was small, I had to sit on him for a couple of hours
to make my point. Since then, I am he closest confidant and friend.



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / James Burrows /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: sciclub@chinook.halcyon.com (James Burrows)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 11 Jul 1995 20:14:06 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

Bill Rowe (wjrowe@ccgate.hac.com) wrote:
: In article <3tp0gr$rao@news1.halcyon.com>, sciclub@coho.halcyon.com (James
: Burrows) wrote:

: |Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: |
: |: Learning new ideas requires significant effort. Also, experience indicates
: |: a large number of ideas which appear to be crackpot ideas are crackpot
: |: ideas. But it can take considerable effort to demonstrate this. All of us
: |: have limited time and energy to pursue and learn new ideas. I believe most
: |: people reject new ideas that appear to be crackpot ideas not to maintain
: |: their status but to conserve their time, energy etc for ideas they feel
: |: are more promising.
: |
: |While true, I think you are being an apologist for closemindedness.  If
: |discoveries of great value lie within the realm of "crackpot ideas," then
: |it *is* worthwhile to investigate crackpot ideas.  No question.  I think
: |it's wrong to imply that the presence of real crackpot stuff makes any
: |consideration of them waste of time.  The few new discoveries hidden among
: |the "crazy" areas will make the consideration of crackpot ideas pay for
: |itself. 

: It is not my intent to "apologize" or in any way support closemindedness.
: However, you must agree I, you or anyone has finite time/resources in
: which to pursue ideas. Consequently, ideas that seem unpromising when
: compare to other ideas seldom are pursue as vigorously.

I do agree with this.  Sorry if I came on a bit strong re. apologist.  I
guess what I'm really saying is that closemindedness and "herd"  behavior
in science is a situation bad enough that changes should be made, and I
interpret your message as arguing *for* the current situation.  Again, I'm
not saying that you should be forced to look at crackpot ideas.  I'm
saying that those who WANT to pursue them should not have nearly
insurmountable barriers placed in front of them.  I'm saying that a
disproportionally large portion of great discoveries were initially judged
to be crackpot, and if EVERYONE selects (for publication and funding) only
the works which have a good chance for success, then this would tend to
stifle large forward jumps progress are stifled.  If crackpot ideas were
always truely what they seem, then your arguement would hold.  It's the
small number which are otherwise which cause the problem. 

<delete>

: Researchers do puruse off the wall ideas and do get funding to do so. You
: only have to look at the efforts spent on cold fusion to see this is true.
: Many other examples can be found.

But it was my impression that in the US, the federal government made it
illegal for researchers to use NSF funding, even the discresionary lab
funding, for research of cold fusion.  And the major journals, "knowing" 
that CF was all bunk, would reject unread any CF paper.  Am I wrong in
this?  If not, and if CF eventually proves useful, then this decision by
the government will be seen as an enormous mistaken attempt to suppress a
valuable new discovery.  It's true that funding sources have been found
elsewhere for CF researchers.  But it's also true that the government's
early judgement that CF is false has put an immense barrier in the way of
research, at least in this country. Not only the funding issue impacts CF. 
Until recently the US patent office would not accept CF patents.  Doesn't
this put a large damper on CF research by independant companies?  During
this time, significant numbers of patents have been made in countries
other than the US. 

Is this situation good?  I suppose it depends on whether CF eventually
comes to anything.  Even if it turns out to be a mass of mistakes and
wishful thinking, I personally don't agree with this type of suppression
of research by the government. 

If large barriers were not put in front of those who wish to do 'crackpot'
research, then the few important discoveries which are initially mistaken
as being 'crackpot' will not be suppressed.  Don't fund and publish
crackpot research at anywhere near the same level as projects which have a
high probability for success.  But invest in *some* crackpot research
because there will be a payoff in the form of new discoveries which
initially cannot be separated from the rest of the crazy stuff.  Don't 
fund CF at the same level as conventional fusion.  But also don't 
artificially set the funding level to zero, don't force researchers to 
create new routes to publication from scratch, and don't automatically 
reject patents.

--
****************************************************************************
Bill Beaty                                        THE SCIENCE CLUB
sciclub@halcyon.com                               School Outreach Programs
Seattle, WA
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensciclub cudfnJames cudlnBurrows cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: 11 Jul 1995 20:45:15 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

(Charles Cagle) (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
: Define gravity.  Define gravitational dipole.  Define gravitational dipole
: moment.

In analogy with electromagnetics I don't see any reasonable definition
of a gravitational dipole as there isn't negative "gravitational charge".
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.11 / Greg Ewing /  Sorry!
     
Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sorry!
Date: 11 Jul 1995 22:20:04 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


My apologies for replying to berty@demon.co.uk's post
without checking which groups it was going to.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 12 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
