1995.07.23 /   /  Re: Marshall Dudley theory
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory
Date: 23 Jul 1995 15:09:52 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Marshall Dudley wrote:

:That is an oversimplification.  You are assuming that both processes obey
the
:standard half-life model.  They do not.  First of all the neutron
emission has
:a threshold value, where once the energy drops below a certain level, it
is no
:longer operative.  If the competing process is a linear process, where
energy
:is lost at a certain constant rate, this formulea also does not hold up. 
If by
:chance the neutron is emitted after a consistant delay, 

There are a few problems with the above analysis. They boil down to a lack
of appreciation of some fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics.

1. The "standard half-life model" is not just some model, it's a rather
simple and fundamental result of quantum mechanics for *any* bound state.

2. "linear process"?? There aren't any linear processes which contribute
to the de-excitation of an excited state, if "linear process" refers to a
continuous decrease in the energy of the excited state. An excited bound
state has a discrete spectrum of energy levels. Transitions between these
levels occur with a given half-life.

3. If the excitation energy is below the threshold for a given decay, then
that decay doesn't occur. If the energy is above threshold, the decay
occurs. As the energy approaches the threshold from above, the half-life
increases smoothly to infinity. In all cases above threshold the decay
proceeds with a well-defined half-life.

4. There are no cases where the neutron is emitted "after a consistent
delay". This again is basic quantum mechanics.

The reason I'm bothering to post this is that Mr. Dudley has given
evidence of listening to reason :-)

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 /  BILLC /  Re: Hypothesis to explain
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hypothesis to explain
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 13:25:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

MD>If there is no mechanism for it to gain this inertia, then we would end up w
MD>a very excited, but stationary He nucleus smack in the middle of the outer
MD>shell of the metal atom (per the hypothesis).  At what rate would such a
MD>nucleus interact with the outer shell electrons?  A million per nanosecond?
MD>Unfortunately I have not found a reference which gives the orbital velocity
MD>electrons in Pd or Ni, but once I find it I think I will be able to estimate
MD>the interaction rate to at least an order of magnitude.

Point of information, please!  Does Pd absorb He (any isotope) as
strongly as iy does H2/D2?
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.22 / Paul Budnik /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 22 Jul 1995 11:40:48 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote:
[...]

: Untrue. In fact modern high speed modems usea whole bunch of parallel
: carrier frequencies. And any modem that communicates over an analog
: line is going to need to modulate an analog signal. That process can,
: by implications of the Nyquist theorem for instance, always be considered
: as a single carrier sine wave modulated by one or more lower frequency
: sine waves.

I believe The first widely used high speed modems from Telebit used
a proprietary technology based on many carriers. Their performance
has been out paced by open technology from the CCITT. The proprietary
technology may not have much of a future.

V.32 modems use a single carrier. Full duplex transmission uses different
carriers in each direction. They change the phase and amplitude
to encode several bits. For example if there are 8 different combinations
of amplitude and phase each position in the complex plane represents 3
bits. These changes occur so rapidly that they exploit the full bandwidth
of the line and sound like noise. I believe that 28,800 baud modems work
similarly but have a more complex eye pattern (more
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 / David Stead /  Re: Fusion Digest 4041
     
Originally-From: dstead@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (David Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 4041
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 20:36:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Fusion Digest wrote:

> |> Perhaps, you'd rather hear my views on how to get laid?
> |>
> 
> Only if they're effective.
> 
> 
..try the Hugh Grant method. It has the benefit of being "proved" to 
work, although there are contra-indications.


 "IF CF WORKS, WHY HAVEN'T P&F MADE ANY CLEAR DEMONSTRATION,
> AND WHY IS THERE NO REPLICATION GOING ON?"
> 
> 
..because it doesn't, and everyone who is working knows it. Only idle 
hands and minds continue to discuss it. Much like UFO's/Elvis et. al.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendstead cudfnDavid cudlnStead cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The dodo replies
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The dodo replies
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 16:25:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> write:
 
     "If I had done Jed's set of experiments on the Griggs device, my
     conclusion would be that I had overlooked something, and to try
     harder..."
 
Very well then, go do the experiments. I have published comprehensive
descriptions of what I did. If you know so damn much, tell us what I did
wrong. How would you improve the technique? You "skeptics" are all hot air and
bluster. You never prove anything and you never do anything. No doubt your
"improvements" would be along the lines of Richard Blue's crackpot "theory"
regarding the Cravens / CETI calorimeter. Blue thinks he can store energy in
water without raising the temperature, and then magically liberate the energy
with electrolysis, so that the temperature suddenly rises 4 deg C. There have
been many stupid mistakes and crackpot ideas batted about here over the years,
but none have been as stupid Richard Blue's. Not even Morrison's idiotic
"cigarette lighter theory."
 
How jolly and easy science would be if we could wave our hands hocus pocus
like Richard Blue does, make up any kind nonsense we like, and call it
physics. Unfortunately we can't. Besides, if any CF scientist was to write
something one-tenth as asinine as Richard Blue's "magic disappearing heat"
theory, you "skeptics" would come down on him like a ton of bricks. I have to
hand it to you, you do keep our side reasonably on track in grade-school level
physics. Morrison or Blue can say *anything* and you "skeptics" remain dead
silent, or you kiss their ass the way Tom Droege does. In a way I am grateful
to you for your contempt. You make good enemies. God knows I do not need
allies who let their friends get away with murder.
 
 
     "That is because I have some sense of how much accumulated physics
     (theory AND experiment) research backs up modern disciplines like
     nuclear physics, etc. . . .
 
No, that is because you are a contemptible, patronizing, nitpicking jerk who
knows nothing about history, technology or business. You spout on about
irrelevant aspects of theoretical physics, because you think that theory can
overrule facts. You and Heeter and the other academic twits here have
demonstrated only two skills so far: you have learned to bamboozle the public
with your hot fusion scams and your superconducting supercolliding super-cost-
overrun hole-in-the-ground; and you have learned to fasten yourselves tightly
onto Uncle Sam's teats. A magnificent accomplishment. No doubt it will be your
life's work, and you probably are not good for anything else.
 
 
     "In his [Jed's] mind, one thorough---by his standards---set of
     experiments by himself, plus the word from a few other novice
     investigators . . ."
 
You know nothing about the other investigators. You have no idea who they
are or what they have done. As usual, you make up facts to fit whatever
nonsense comes into your head.
 
 
     But Jed will, undoubtedly learn his lesson, as Scott Little's experience
     with the Potapov device should suggest...."
 
Scott Little is testing a configuration which is completely different from
Potapov's. He flow rate is three times higher; pressures, temperatures and
other critical parameters are also not the recommended values. I do not see
how anyone could consider his experiment definitive. I do not think that
Little himself would make that claim. Several other scientists in Russia,
China and the U.S. have tested the Potapov device and reported that it works.
I cannot yet judge whether they are right or Little is right. I have not
learned any lessons yet. You, on the other hand, have jumped to an unwarranted
conclusion. I have not learned, but you never will learn, because you decide
beforehand what you will belive and then you manufacture "facts" and
"evidence" (like the qualifications of people testing the Griggs device) to
fit. This is how modern "skeptics" think. You are not skeptics at all really,
you are "debunkers," as defined in the classic essay by Daniel Drasin.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 / Howard Eckles /  Re: Greatest math since discovery of nonEuclidean geometries
     
Originally-From: heckles@ix.netcom.com (Howard Eckles)
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.c
em,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Greatest math since discovery of nonEuclidean geometries
Date: 23 Jul 1995 21:05:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3urnrt$lnb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 
>
>In article <3up59i$7ke@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>>   When it is all done it will be obviously correct and beautiful
>> because of uniqueness. I had conjectured that there exists one and
only
>> one program for all the requirements and constraints to work out.
All
>> the definitions of operations, what Adics and Doubly Infinites are,
>> will be satisfied by a unique program. And of course it will be
>> beautiful because then Numbers or Arithmetic equals Geometry or
Space.
>> That is, a space is a set of numbers. And Riem geom == Adics; Eucl
geom
>> == Reals; and Loba geom == Doubly Infinites
>
>  Note that the Doubly Infinites (DIs) do not have the finite leftward
>portion that the Reals have. Nor, do the DIs have the finite rightward
>portion that the Adics have. This is all good and shows the beauty,
>magnificent beauty of this program. For it is the finite portion of
the
>Reals which is the Whole Reals and these Whole Reals relate to the
>finite portion of the Adics. But in the Doubly Infinites no finite
>portion exists.
>
>  Notice how the transformation function from Eucl -> Loba geometry is
>tanh and that tanh is a hyperbolic function. Loba geometry is
>hyperbolic geometry. A good model is the horse shaped saddle. Notice
>how the graph of tanh is saddle shaped.
>
>   Note that DIs have so to speak two things to worry about, one a
Real
>portion that is between -1 and 1 and the Adic portion. Notice that in
>this fashion, a easy definition of a Doubly Infinite Number is to make
>each Doubly Infinite as the y of the function y = tanh x, where x is
>Real. In this way the Adic portion will take care of all y beyond the
1
>and -1 domain. And of course the Real portion takes care of all y
>within the 1 and -1 domain. In this way the Real portion of a Doubly
>Infinite is a direction component of a vector and the Adic component
is
>the length component of the vector provided we see each Doubly
Infinite
>as a vector itself.
>
>   This is really neat. And anyone going into this program or thinking
>about it must drop aside all prejudices or preconceptions for the math
>itself will educate those of us as to its reality and truth. 
>
>  Really neat because the finite portion of both Reals and Adics have
>no meaning in Doubly Infinites. I just wonder what the geometrical
>equivalent statement of that is in Loba geometry?
>
>   Let me here just make some remarks in general about the year 1993
>and now 1995 and math or science journals and the Internet. Of course
>most every reader of this will disagree, but most every reader amounts
>to nothing of importance to science or math. So this evaluation will
be
>seen in full by my successors. As of 1993-1995 when I appeared on the
>Internet, my appearance on the Internet spells the doom, the
extinction
>of science and math journals. The Internet, due to its speed, its
speed
>above all else, and due to its ease of world wide communication is and
>was the deathknell of the journal system. The world in the next months
>or years will witness the utter destruction of the childish math
>offering by some Princeton math-goofball. And the more that that
>crackpot FLT chicanery is acknowledged, the more violent will be the
>utter conflagration of all math (and science) journals. Mark my word,
>the years 1993-1995, because of my "finding" the Internet was the year
>benchmark of the decline and extinction of the peer-reviewed journal
>system in the fields of science and math. And,  ,   ,   Good Riddance,

> Atom
What power!  Ego crud spread further and faster than a speeding bullet!
Or compost thrown by an Atomic MixMaster(tm).
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenheckles cudfnHoward cudlnEckles cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: 23 Jul 1995 21:49:16 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <jaboweryDBz2BG.n1D@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)  
writes:
> The fusion act replacement that I was circulating 

what was the content of that act, and to whom were you circulating it?
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:00 -0500 (EST)

wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) writes:
 
-> Actually, there is considerable agreement both experimentally and theoretica
-> that the electrons of the absorbed hydrogen do occuppy some of the empty
-> conduction band states in Pd. A very useful review of the literature is
-> provided by R. Oriani, "The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen
-> in Metals", Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, p18
 
Thanks, that is what I would expect.
 
-> No, this is not what is observed. As hydrogen is absorbed by Pd, the
-> conductivity at first falls (resistance rises) up to a ratio of around
-> 0.7 H atom/Pd atom where the conductivity is about 1/2 that of pure Pd.
-> As the loading is increased, the conductivity rises again (resistance falls)
-> until at about 1.0 H atom/Pd atom, the conductivity is again almost the
-> same as the pure metal.
 
I am now aware of this.  The reasons why this would occur are intriguing.
 
-> Whether or not conductivity rises as a result of the addition of electrons
-> to empty conduction bands in the metal is not a simple question. For example
-> an electrical insulator is a material in which a conduction band is
-> completely full (plus there is a substantial energy gap before the next
-> available empty band). In the case of the conduction bands of Pd, there is
-> still, however, something of a mystery that I don't believe is fully
-> resolved. That is that the theory says there are only about 0.35 empty
-> spaces (electron holes) per Pd atom. So it is not clear from the band
-> state model alone why the conduction minimum occurs at 0.7 H atom/Pd atom.
 
Agreed.
 
-> This is also related to the transition from exothermic absorption (a small
-> amount of heat is given off as H is absorbed into Pd) to an endothermic
-> process somewhere between 0.7 and 1.0 H atom/ Pd atom. Pons and Fleischmann
-> consider this transition to be critically important to the phenomena that
-> they observe. Another significant factor are the discrete changes in the
-> lattice structure of the metal as the ratio of H/Pd increases.  At low
-> concentrations the lattice remains essential the same as the pure metal.
-> This is called the alpha-phase of the Pd-H "alloy". As the concentration
-> increases there is a sudden transition in isolated domains within the
-> Pd lattice that spontaneously change to another lattice structure with
-> the same geometry but larger spacing between the Pd atoms.
 
This actually seems to jive with my hypothesis.  Once sufficient protons (or
deuterium nuclei) are attached to Pd atoms so that they can no longer avoid
opposing each other, then there will be a coulomb force which tends on the
average to push the adjacent atoms apart.  If I am visualizing the crystal
structure right, I believe this should occur somewhere around 80% loading.  Do
you know where it actually occurs?
 
-> This is
-> called the beta-phase. P&F believe they have found evidence of a third
-> lattice phase, that they call gamma Pd-H which forms near the 1:1 Pd:H
-> ratio (Bartolomeo, Fleischmann et. al. "The Alpha, Beta, Gamma of the
-> Palladium-Hydrogen System", Proceedings: Fourth International Conference
-> on Cold Fusion", p19-1).
 
Once all the atoms have opposing nuclei, then I can see how a change in the
structure would occur.  Is there any information on what the new structure is?
 
-> >valence of Pd we find that it is +2.  That means that if we add two electro
-> >the shell will be filled (the other electrons are involved in the metallic
-> >bond). Thus if we have 100% loading, we end up with one missing electron to
-> >fill a shell. This would be expected to exactly halve the conductivity, whi
-> >is exactly what happens.
->
-> This model is too naive and in fact contradicts the observations.
 
I agree.  Thanks for the information.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:16 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> Ah. I'm a rank amateur where this sort of stuff is concerned, but there are
-> a fair few theory papers in the bibliography on this very point. I recall
-> reading one, for example, that takes the electrons between two deuterons to
-> be a continuous dielectric medium, effectively shielding the deuterons from
-> each other.
 
I believe you mean conductive medium, dielectric mediums provide no
electrostatic or magnetic shielding.
 
-> This may be close to the truth at large d-d distances, but as tw
-> d's approach one another, the dielectric would become a set of discrete
-> particles (electrons); closer still, you have maybe one electron in between
-> the two d's.
 
I don't believe you can view the electrons in the shells as discrete electrons,
but because of their high orbital velocity (and QM considerations) as a shell.
We have 11 electrons to work with in that shell, and two positive charges near
the same point should cause the orbits to be attracted toward those positive
points.  Thus the charge distribution would tend to bulge in the area near
the positive nuclei.  All we need is an average of one electron charge between
the two nuclei to effectively shield them from each other.
 
-> At this point, effective electron mass arguments come in, but
-> fail to provide evidence of sufficiently close approach for appreciable
-> fusion rates, unless one wants to invoke "somehow" high effective mass (I
-> recall that a factor of about 8 is needed).
 
Could you elaborate on this a little more?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:31 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> I'm just a humble electrochemist, but I find this hard to accept; in fact I
-> know it is a simplification, even for gravity.
 
I am sure is it not an oversimplification for gravity.  I went through the
equations rigerously a few years ago when Star Trek came up with that hollow
sphere around a star episode.  They are usually pretty good, and I just did not
believe such an arrangement could be stable until I proved it myself.  If found
that a hollow shell generates NO gravity inside, and appears outside as if all
of its mass were at the center.
 
-> But let's keep to the point.
-> The reason I know it is not right is the case of two deuterium atoms
-> approaching one another; let them both be neutral. At a large distance
-> from one another, there is no electrical attraction or repulsion; here the
-> center-of-mass argument holds. As they happen to get close, there comes a
-> point when their two nuclei repel one another, and the electrons no longer
-> cancel out the nuclear charge. By your argument, they could just come right
-> up to one another because they have a zero charge located at each of their
-> exact centres. Deuterium molecules would not have that 0.72 A d-d distance,
-> we'd have fusion going on everywhere. In fact, we wouldn't be here.
 
No.  The argument only holds for outside the outer shell.  When inside the
shell the nucleus is no longer fully shielded.  Thus with no other effect, the
nucleus would be repelled once it penetrated the outer shell of the other atom,
a distance much too far for fusion to take place.  However there is another
more subtle effect which causes repulsion as soon as the shells come
close to each other.  It is the same effect I gave in the previous post where
I said that the electrons would tend to increase in density near the positive
nucleus, but in reverse.  In this case the electrons in the shells would thin
near the point of contact, thus reducing the shielding between the nuclei.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 18:13 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> In the observation of the decay of shortlived nuclear states it is
-> often possible to measure the "width" of a state.  That is to say
-> the energy distribution of particles emitted from the state may
-> exceed the experimental resolution sufficiently to make it possible
-> to determine the energy width of the decaying state.  The energy-time
-> uncertainty relationship then allows one to deduce the lifetime of
-> the decaying state.  Shortlived states have large widths such that
-> lifetimes too short to be determined directly can be inferred from
-> the width.  If we are to consider the decay of excited states in
-> 4He the observed widths may well put the time scale into the
-> 10^-23 second range.  OK?  Too theoretical?
 
Once again I must ask.  Is this number pulled out of your hat, as was 1E-40?
Is this a real number computed by the method you propose above?  I agree the
above method is probably valid, but is this number from that method, or simply
made up because it "sounds about right" to you?
 
-> Off the top of my head I seem to recall that one watt of fusion power requir
-> something like 10^13 fusions per second.  Normally that would result in the
-> emission of almost 10^13 particles per second, but within the limits of
-> experimental sensitivity there are essentially none.  What should we take
-> as a the experimental number for sensitivity to neutrons?  Steve Jones
-> can certainly put the limit down in the few per hour range, but let's not
-> push the point.  I would say that 1 per second is a piece of cake
-> experimentally.
->
-> So you are claiming that the neutron emission rate goes down by thirteen
-> orders of magnitude.  Hence I would conclude that the competing process
-> has to reduce the lifetime of excited 4He to something less than
->
->          10^-36 seconds.
 
That is an oversimplification.  You are assuming that both processes obey the
standard half-life model.  They do not.  First of all the neutron emission has
a threshold value, where once the energy drops below a certain level, it is no
longer operative.  If the competing process is a linear process, where energy
is lost at a certain constant rate, this formulea also does not hold up.  If by
chance the neutron is emitted after a consistant delay, but the competing
process is a half-life process the following formula would apply:
 
                       2 ^ -(1E-23/X)  = 1E-13
                       -1E-23/X = log (1E-13)
                                     2
                       1E-23/X = -ln(1E-13)/ln(2)
                       X = -1E-23 / (-29.934/.6931718)
                       X = 2.32E-25 Second
 
Thus a process just slightly faster than 43 times as fast will capture 1E13
times as many events.  My point is that it is very important to characterise
the decay rate vs. time; is it constant, half-life, after a specific delay or
what?  In addition, just where is the threshold at which a certain process is
no longer operative.  Considerably different results will be obtained if
neutron ejection threshold is at 99% or 1% of the original energy.
 
-> There, does that make you happier?  Sorry if my original number was off
-> by 10^4.
 
I believe your original number was off by 1E17 using your above numbers.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 17 Jul 1995 10:47:44 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>In article <3ts8kj$r39@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> I wrote:
>>
>>         ...                     People from my generation and younger 
>>might also include Social Security and the unfunded (future) costs of 
>>federal retirement programs, but those are ignored in the cash-type 
>>accounting used in the federal budget. 

In article <DBus37.Fw0@prometheus.UUCP> 
pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>Cash?    Cash-type??   are you speaking of borrowed Cash??    

Cash accounting, as opposed to accrual accounting.  

Businesses use one or the other, but the federal rules for pension 
plans require that those plans keep accrual-style books.  Similar 
rules are not applied to the federal government's retirement systems, 
where retirement costs accrued today will be paid with tomorrow's 
taxes.  If the US used an accrual system or was required to set 
aside funds to pay for retirement, the resulting budget deficit would 
make the usually-reported cash deficit look tiny. 

This is one of the important differences in the cost of a government 
employee and the cost of a contractor, since the contractor has to 
account for retirement as part of the fringe benefits costs. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.23 / Richard Blue /  Re: Autoradiographs of the electrode
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Autoradiographs of the electrode
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 16:00:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has clarified his early statement by a replacement
of the word "lattice" by "electrode".  I agree that an autoradiograph
may provide a crude picture of the distribution of activity from an
electrode.  It has, however, been pointed out that the image recorded
on the film may not necessarily be due to radioactivity.  It would seem
prudent then to supplement each autoradiograph made by a simple measurement
with a survey meter, perhaps, to verify that the item being imaged is
radioactive.


Perhaps Mitchell could tell us what steps were taken to demonstrate that
CF electrodes are generally radioactive following a successful CF electrolysis
runs.  And is the level of activity detected by electronic means consistent
with the time require to develop an autogradiographic image?

I have the feeling that there is a significant conflict between the results
of various CF experiments on this point.  It is one of those areas in which
no two laboratories have ever gotten the same result.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul 24 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
