1995.07.26 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
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: 26 Jul 1995 17:54:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom

>>>SCI.PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
>>
>>>Announcing the embryonic sci.physics crackpots FAQ.  This is sent via
>>>an anonymous server.  The author wishes to remain nameless.  Please
>>>contribute to this FAQ unless you are one of the nutcases named below.
>>>Nothing is certain about this FAQ except that all the people on it are
>>>nutcases.
>
>This childish FAQ is the work of a egocentric paranoid who goes by
>the handle of "Ben Joe" Bullock alias ( Mos Burger ). 
>
>It's main purpose is to try to impose on the science boards by stealth 
>and deceipt what he cannot do with knowledge and logic.
>
>This British boy is all messed up and should be pitied.
>I think the Japanese are filling his saki with LSD.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / 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: 26 Jul 1995 21:10:23 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:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.flame
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 26 Jul 1995 11:20:15 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3v32h2$d8s@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Don't feel bad about it though, I've named one of my body parts after you.

That's interesting, as the rest of us also refer to you by one of your
body parts.  Probably the same one, in fact.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Tom Potter /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
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: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 26 Jul 1995 11:52:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3un2bs$h0c@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.pri
ceton.edu> writes: 

>All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in
>sci.physics.fusion.  We all know where to find this info
>and there's no need to waste bandwidth with superfluous
>crossposting.  Please show a little more respect for
>the rest of us on the internet.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.

All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in ANY forum.
If you have an objection with ANY post by ANY individual in ANY forum,
you will save bandwidth and superfluous crossposting by emailing the
individual rather than cluttering up forums with this nonesense.

At least the original posters on this subject were discussing science.
You are simply expressing a childish opinion.

As you "not speak for anyone else in any of the above".
"Please show a little more respect for the rest of us on the internet."
Do not clutter up Internet by starting childish flame wars.




cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Bill Page /  Re: Moessbauer Effect?
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moessbauer Effect?
Date: 26 Jul 1995 12:21:08 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3v4bb8$9ft@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>...
>
>This would seem like a good example of a chemical lattice 
>mediating a nuclear event. 
>
>(a) is there any reason it is not a good example of such
>

Well, for one thing, the energies involved are very small. In fact
there are some other nuclear/chemical effects of similar small
magnitude, such as chemical influences on the internal conversion
of electrons (a type of beta decay).

>(b) is there a intuitive, causal way to understand the Moessbauer
>effect? I have a hard time seeing naively how the effect is achieved.

For intuitive purposes an anthropomorphic explanation might be
appealing: Nature prefers to perserve the periodic structure of
the lattice over local momentum conservation laws. At a higher
level of abstract, of course, it probably makes perfect sense in
momentum space - not very intuitive though.

>I would expect the de-excitation to occur as in vacuo, with
>a gamma emitted and doppler shifted down in energy as the 
>nucleus recoils, and then some time much later the recoiling 
>nucleus would collide with the coulomb fields of lattice nuclei
>and electrons, and gradually dissipate its recoil energy. How
>should this picture be ammended to result in no recoil and the 
>emmission of a higher energy gamma?
>

You have to take into account the effect the lattice has on the
conservation of momentum. It is the so called crystal or lattice
"momentum" that is conserved, not the local momentum of the
particle.

In any case, I think it has been argued fairly successfully here
that these effects are much to small in magnitude to be directly
applicable to "CF" effects. On the other hand, it may well be some
kind of theoretical "foot in the door". I.e. can we think of any
reason way that this effect could be operative at much higher
energies?

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.25 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 25 Jul 1995 16:04:06 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3v1tut$su@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:19:52 GMT, ederd@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Dani
> Eder) wrote:
> [snip]
> >In the US we have 24,000 square kilometers of surface area tied up
> >in roads.  With photovoltaics averaging 18 MW/square km, you could
> >generate 432,000 MW by roofing over roads with solar panels.  Since
> >roads are already black, mostly, the absorbtion wouldn't be any
> >higher than it is now, and you can power the microwave transmitters
> >to feed power to electric autos conveniently.
> 
> >Then there is the roof area of houses and buildings and parking lots
> >to consider.  I suspect you could supply all the power you want
> >for the US just by re-using surface area already covered in asphalt.
> 
> >Dani Eder
> 
> This may be a bit far fetched, but would it be possible to replace the
> road surface itself with solar panels, protected by a transparent
> layer? My thoughts ran in this direction, because roofing would remove
> light from the road itself, making driving more difficult (Unless the
> solar roofing panels were semi-transparent (translucent?).

I would think that if we were to invest in such acres upon acres of PV
cells, we'd be foolish to allow people and trucking companies to drive on
it.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: autoradiographs
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: autoradiographs
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:55:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz's answer to my suggestion that experimental
evidence concerning the radioactivity of CF electrodes has
been contradictory is the tired old suggestion that I read
the literature and cite references.  Mitchell, I can't cite
information in the literature if it is not there!

The point I was making concerning autoradiographs is that
they do not by themselves provide a quantitative measure
of the activity.  It is the lack of information about the
supposed activity that is most remarkable.  I think that
tells us a great deal about the nature of cold fusion
research.  The trick has always been to provide just enough
imformation to indicate that there is something going on,
but one must never make the kind of detailed measurements
that would have a chance for pinning anything down.  Are
the electrodes radioactive or are they not?  That is
a pretty simple question, but I suggest you won't find
the answer in the CF literature.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: simple science
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: simple science
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:05:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell continues to smear himself with his own excrement.
He asserts that I am somehow an advocate of the notion that science
is something so simple that anyone can do it.

That is absurd!  The whole focus I everything I have been saying
about cold fusion is to point out that the process of doing good
science is NOT SIMPLE!

Got that, Jed?  It is not simple.  Now who do you think may know
more about the difficulties of doing a good experiment?  Is it
you with your vast experience as a scietific investigator or is
it I?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:26 -0500 (EST)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
-> Well, such estimates for the time required to execute
-> an energy level transition usually follow straight from the uncertainly
-> principle, via
->
-> delta E * delta t ~ h
->
-> so that give the energy scale involved, you can put a (lower) bound
-> on the time an event takes to transpire. (It could take longer
-> than this bound, but it typically doesn't).
->
-> For nuclear transitions, delta E ~ 1 MeV ~ 10^-13 J, h ~ 10^-34 J.sec,
-> and delta t ~ h/E ~ 10^-21 sec. Thus, this is the basic timescale
-> for nuclear changes of state. (Of course, some state with a specially
-> symmetry that excludes most transitions may take much longer to
-> drop to an unexcited level).
 
Thanks, this is the kind of information I was looking for.  10^-21 sec
certainly sounds much more realistic than the 10^-40 that Dick Blue threw out.
 
I am archiving this message for future reference.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
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: 26 Jul 1995 16:59:57 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <1995Jul19.161908.26092@schbbs.mot.com>,
Bronis Vidugiris <bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com> wrote:

>)Are you saying that:
>)	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
>)	distance <> time * a constant   "C"
>)	mass(A) <> distance(B)^3 / time(common)^2 / a constant    "G"
>
>Nope.  I agree with all of the above  (or at least the first two, I'd
>have to double-check the math on number 3, I'm assuming you have it
>right, and if you have made a minor typographical error it probably
>doesn't matter because there is some similar relationship anyway.

Ergo, E = M x C**3

[well, its something like that anyway. Close enough. Few orders of magnitude, I
can handle that...]

*shakes head in despair*

M.

PS. My comment on the thread: changing unit conventions doesn't reveal
fundamental things about nature, just as changing the language a book is written
in doesn't change its contents appreciably. In this case its an interesting
exercise, and may even have some utility for spotting relationships more
clearly, but because you can express mass as time doesn't mean it is _made of_
time. Seems a naive leap to make, with no evidence.


-- 
.sig test: nearing completion.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 26 Jul 1995 12:52:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I imagine there is a finite rate with which electron capture happens in
case there is a proton or a D nucleus embedded in the electron shell of a
heavy metal like Pd.  Normally the rate of such electron capture is slow I
imagine due to the shielding effect of the D s own electron shell. In case
of a metal I imagine the freely wandering electrons behave as though they
had a higher effective mass. This on one hand may promote fusion reactions
on the other hand it may promote electron capture. Electron capture may
convert the proton to a neutron or the pn system to a nn. The presence of
neutrons or nn systems in the shell may contribute to the generation of
various fusion products as well as it may explain why some have reported
fusion in the absence of heavy water. 

To consider the decay of highly excited helium nuclei in the shell I guess
it is enough for the electrons to cool the excited nuclei enough to
disable the principal decay modes ie. he4 -> D+D or he4 -> he3 + n. I am
not sure off the top of my head how much that is, but the electrons may
cool the excited nucleus enough before the decay occurs. After that they
have all the time in the world. 

I wonder whether the higher effective mass of valence electrons could
promote fusion reactions similar to muon catalized fusion.

I would appretiate arguments pro and con regarding these ideas

Zoltan Szakaly

I also 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
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: 26 Jul 1995 17:35:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3v5opt$igf@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 

>
>In article <1995Jul19.161908.26092@schbbs.mot.com>,
>Bronis Vidugiris <bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>
>>)Are you saying that:
>>)	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
>>)	distance <> time * a constant   "C"
>>)	mass(A) <> distance(B)^3 / time(common)^2 / a constant    "G"
>>
>>Nope.  I agree with all of the above  (or at least the first two, I'd
>>have to double-check the math on number 3, I'm assuming you have it
>>right, and if you have made a minor typographical error it probably
>>doesn't matter because there is some similar relationship anyway.
>
>Ergo, E = M x C**3

Apparently you don't know that "G" has the dimensions of
distance^3 / ( mass *  time^2 )

>
>[well, its something like that anyway. Close enough. Few orders of magnitude, I
>can handle that...]
>
>*shakes head in despair*

Learn dimensional analysis and you won't despair so.

>
>M.
>
>PS. My comment on the thread: changing unit conventions doesn't reveal
>fundamental things about nature, just as changing the language a book is written
>in doesn't change its contents appreciably. In this case its an interesting
>exercise, and may even have some utility for spotting relationships more
>clearly, but because you can express mass as time doesn't mean it is _made of_
>time. Seems a naive leap to make, with no evidence.

Seems to me that accepting mind created, unneeded, and distorted concepts like 
space and mass is more like a naivee crawl.

By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should only
see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind creations
for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.

Why write the book for color blind people?




cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Subject: Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Law
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 10:11:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3uug4s$hcm@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>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?

I have an early version of the act, so I can't vouch for it's accuracy,
but it does at least show the direction, which includes incentive based 
motivation and an opportunity for a wide participation.  

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Law

Paul,

I'm working on some amendments to the current law authorizing
magnetic fusion research.  Specifically, I'm adding some investment
tax credits and cleaning up some of the language so it has a clearer
role for privately developed concepts, with rewards for success rather
than ongoing government funded research.  You mentioned something about
the advisory boards having a conflict of interest.  How about looking over
the language on the various panels, committees and boards and see if
you can modify it so the conflicts of interest are contained to lower
levels and the top levels (the report generators) have no conflicts of
interest?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                CHAPTER 101 -- MAGNETIC FUSION

ENERGY ENGINEERING

(editor's note:  the text of this law was derived from United States
Code Annotated which derived its text from Pub. L. 96-389, sec 3, Oct.
7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1540.  For a legislative history and purpose see
1980 U.S. Code Cong. And Adm. News, P. 3336)

Sec 9301. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress hereby finds that --

     (1) the United States must formulate an energy policy designed
to meet an impending worldwide shortage of many exhaustible,
conventional energy resources in the next few decades;

     (2) the energy policy of the United States must be designed to
ensure that energy technologies using essentially inexhaustible
resources are commercially available at a time prior to serious
depletion of conventional resources;

     (3) fusion energy is one of the few known energy sources which
are essentially inexhaustible, and thus constitutes a long-term energy
option;

     (4) major progress in all aspects of magnetic fusion energy
technology during the past decade instills confidence that power
production from fusion energy systems is achievable;

     (5) the United States must aggressively pursue research and
development programs in magnetic fusion designed to foster advanced
concepts and advanced technology and to develop efficient, reliable
components and subsystems;

     (6) to ensure the timely commercialization of magnetic fusion
energy systems, the United States must demonstrate at an early date
the engineering feasibility of magnetic fusion energy systems;

     (7) progress in magnetic fusion energy systems is currently
limited by the funds made available rather than technical
barriers;

     (8) it is a proper role for the Federal Government to
accelerate research, development and demonstration programs in
magnetic fusion energy technologies; and

     (9) acceleration of the current magnetic fusion program will
require a doubling within seven years of the present funding level
without consideration of inflation and a 25 per centum increase in
funding each of fiscal years 1982 and 1983.

(b) It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States and
the purpose of this chapter to accelerate the national effort in
research, development, and demonstration activities related to
magnetic fusion energy systems.  Further, it is declared to be the
policy of the United States and the purpose of this chapter that the
objectives of such a program shall be --

     (1) to promote an orderly transition from the current research
and development program through commercial development;

     (2) to establish a national goal of demonstrating the
engineering feasibility of magnetic fusion by the early
1990's;

     (3) to achieve at the earliest practicable time, but not later
than the year 1990, operation of a magnetic fusion engineering device
based on the best available confinement concept;

     (4) to establish as a national goal the operation of a
magnetic fusion demonstration plant at the turn of the twenty-first
century;

     (5) to foster cooperation in magnetic fusion research and
development among government, universities, industry, and national
laboratories;

     (6) to promote the broad participation of domestic industry in
the national magnetic fusion program;

     (7) to continue international cooperation in magnetic fusion
research for the benefit of all nations;

     (8) to promote greater public understanding of magnetic
fusion; and

     (9) to maintain the United States as the world leader in
magnetic fusion.


Sec. 9302.  Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter --

     (1) "fusion" means a process whereby two light nuclei, such as
deuterium and tritium, collide at high velocity, forming a compound
nucleus, which subsequently separates into constituents which are
different from the original colliding nuclei, and which carry away the
accompanying energy release;

     (2) "magnetic fusion" means the use of magnetic fields to
confine a very hot, fully ionized gas of light nuclei, so that the
fusion process can occur;

     (3) "energy system" means a facility designed to utilize
energy released in the magnetic fusion process for the generation of
electricity and the production of hydrogen or other fuels;

     (4) "fusion engineering device" means a magnetic fusion
facility which achieves at least a burning plasma and serves to test
components for engineering purposes;

     (5) "demonstration plant" means a prototype energy system
which is of sufficient size to provide safety, environmental
reliability, availability, and ready engineering extrapolation of all
components to commercial size but which system need not be
economically competitive with then alternative energy sources;
and

     (6) "Secretary" means Secretary of Energy.


Sec. 9303.  Program activities

(a) Development in areas where lack of knowledge limits magnetic 
fusion energy systems

     The Secretary shall initiate activities or accelerate existing
activities in research areas in which the lack of knowledge limits
magnetic fusion energy systems in order to ensure the achievement of
the purposes of this chapter.


(b) Research programs on plasma confinement, alternative confinement
concepts, advanced fuels, and properties of materials likely to be
used in construction of fusion engineering devices

     (1) The Secretary shall maintain an aggressive plasma
confinement research program on the current lead concept to provide a
full measure of support for the design, construction, and operation of
the fusion engineering devices.

     (2) The Secretary shall maintain a broadly based research
program on alternate confinement concepts and on advanced fuels at a
sufficient level of funding to achieve optimal design of each
successive magnetic fusion facility using the then best available
confinement and fuel concept.

     (3) The Secretary shall ensure that research on properties of 
materials likely to be required for the construction of fusion
engineering devices is adequate to provide timely information for the
design of such devices.


(c) Fusion engineering device designs

     (1) The Secretary shall initiate design activities on a fusion
engineering device using the best available confinement concept to
ensure operation of such a device at the earliest practicable time,
but not later than the year 1990.

     (2) The Secretary shall develop and test the adequacy of the
engineering design of components to be utilized in the fusion
engineering device.


(d) Operation of demonstration plant at turn of twenty-first century

     The Secretary shall initiate at the earliest practical time
each activity which he deems necessary to achieve the national goal
for operation of a demonstration plant at the turn of the twenty-first
century.


(e) Assessment of factors in determining commercial introduction of
magnetic fusion energy systems

     The Secretary shall continue efforts to assess factors which
will determine the commercial introduction of magnetic fusion energy
systems including but not limited to --

     (1) projected costs relative to other alternative energy
sources;

     (2) projected growth rates in energy demand;

     (3) safety-related design limitations;

     (4) environmental impacts; and

     (5) limitations on the availability of strategic elements such
as helium, lithium, and special metals.


Sec. 9304.  Comprehensive program management plan; submittal to
Congressional committees

(a) The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive program management
plan for the conduct of the research, development, and demonstration
activities under this chapter.  Such plan shall include at a
minimum
--

     (1) a presentation of the program strategy which will be used
to achieve the purposes of this chapter;

     (2) a five-year program implementation schedule, including
identification of detailed milestone goals, with associated budget and
program resources requirements;

     (3) risk assessments;

     (4) supporting research and development needed to solve
programs which may inhibit or limit development of magnetic fusion
energy systems; and

     (5) an analysis of institutional, environmental, and economic
considerations which are limiting the national magnetic fusion
program.

(b) The Secretary shall transmit the comprehensive program management
plan to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate not later than January 1, 1982.


Sec. 9305.  Magnetic fusion engineering center

(a) Development plan

     The Secretary shall develop a plan for the creation of a
national magnetic fusion engineering center for the purpose of
accelerating fusion technology of development via the concentration
and coordination of major magnetic fusion engineering devices and
associated activities at such a national center.

(b) Factors considered in formulation of development plan

     In developing the plan, the Secretary shall include relevant
factors including, but not limited to --

     (1) means of saving cost and time through the establishment of
the national center relative to the cost and schedule currently
projected for the program;

     (2) means of providing common facilities to be shared by many
magnetic fusion concepts;

     (3) assessment of the environmental safety-related aspects of
the national center;

     (4) provisions for international cooperation in magnetic
fusion activities at the national center;

     (5) provision of access to facilities for the broader
technical involvement of domestic industry and universities in the
magnetic fusion energy program;

     (6) siting criteria for the national center including a list
of potential sites;

     (7) the advisability of establishing such a center considering
all factors, including the alternative means and associated costs of
pursuing such technology; and

     (8) changes in the management structure of the magnetic fusion
program to allow more effective direction of activities related to the
national center.


(c) Report to Congressional committees

     The Secretary shall submit not later than July 1, 1981, a
report to the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources characterizing the plan and
setting forth the steps necessary for implementation of the plan,
including any steps already implemented.


Sec. 9306.  Technical panel on magnetic fusion

(a) Establishment

     A technical panel on magnetic fusion of the Energy Research
Advisory Board shall be established to review the conduct of the
national magnetic fusion energy program.


(b) Membership

(1) The technical panel shall be comprised of such representatives
from domestic industry, universities, government laboratories, and
other scientific and technical organizations as the Chairman of the
Energy Research Advisory Board deems appropriate based on his
assessment of the technical qualifications of each such
representative.

(2) Members of the technical panel need not be members of the full
Energy Research Advisory Board.


(c) Compliance guidelines

     The activities of the technical panel shall be in compliance
with any laws and regulations guiding the activities of technical and
fact-finding groups reporting to the Energy Research Advisory
Board.


(d) Duties

     The technical panel shall review and may make recommendations
on the following items, among others;

     (1) the preparation of the five-year program plan prepared
pursuant to section 9304 of this title;

     (2) the type of future facilities needed to meet the goals of
this chapter along with their projected completion dates;

     (3) the adequacy of participation by universities and industry
in the program;

     (4) the adequacy of international cooperation in magnetic
fusion and any problems associated therewith; and

     (5) institutional, environmental, and economic factors
limiting, or prospectively limiting, efforts to achieve commercial
application of magnetic fusion energy systems.


(e) Report to Energy Research Advisory Board

     The technical board (editors note: probably should be "panel")
shall submit to the Energy Research Advisory board on at least a
triennial basis a written report of its findings and recommendations
with regard to the magnetic fusion program.

(f) Submission of report by Energy Research Advisory Board to Secretary

     After consideration of the technical panel report, the Energy
Research Advisory Board shall submit such report, together with any
comments such Board deems appropriate to the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 96-389, sec 3, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1540.)


Sec. 9307.  Program advisory committees

     The Secretary may direct the director of each laboratory or
installation at which a major magnetic fusion facility is operated
for, or funded primarily by, the Federal Government to establish, for
the sole purpose of providing advice to such director, a program
advisory committee composed of persons with expertise in magnetic
fusion from such domestic industry, universities, government
laboratories, and other scientific and technical organizations as such
director deems appropriate.


Sec. 9308  International cooperation; examination of impact on
national magnetic fusion program; exploration of prospects for joint
funding in construction of fusion engineering device; report to
Congressional committees on results of examination and
exploration

(a)(1) The Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of State shall
actively seek to enter into or to strengthen existing international
cooperative agreements in magnetic fusion research and development
activities of mutual benefit to all parties.

     (2) The Secretary shall seek to achieve equitable exchange of
information, data, scientific personnel, and other considerations in
the conduct of cooperative efforts with technologically advanced
nations.

(b)(1) The Secretary shall examine the potential impacts on the
national magnetic fusion program of United States participation in an
international effort to construct fusion engineering devices.

     (2) The Secretary shall explore, to the extent feasible, the
prospects for joint financial participation by other nations with the
United States in the construction of a fusion engineering
device.

     (3) Within two years of October 7, 1980, the Secretary shall
transmit to the House Committee on Science and Technology and the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources the results of such
examinations and explorations with his recommendations for construction
of a national or international fusion engineering device: Provided,
however, That such examinations and explorations shall not have the
effect of delaying design activities related to a national fusion
engineering device.


Sec. 9309.  Technical manpower requirements; report to President and
Congress

(a) The Secretary shall assess the adequacy of the projected United
States supply of manpower in the engineering and scientific
disciplines required to achieve the purposes of this chapter taking
cognizance of the other demands likely to be placed on such manpower
supply.

(b) The Secretary shall within one year of October 7, 1980, submit a
report to the President and to the Congress setting forth his
assessment along with his recommendations regarding the need for
increased support for education in such engineering and scientific
disciplines.


Sec. 9310.  Dissemination of information

(a) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to assure all
technical information relevant to the status and progress of the
national magnetic fusion program is made readily available to
interested persons in domestic industry and universities in the United
States:  Provided, however, That upon a showing to the Secretary by
any person that any information or portion thereof provided to the
Secretary directly or indirectly from such person would, if made
public, divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other proprietary information
of such person, the Secretary shall not disclose such information and
disclosure thereof shall be punishable under section 1905 of
Title 18.

(b) The Secretary shall maintain an aggressive program in the United
States for the provision of public information and educational
materials to promote widespread knowledge of magnetic fusion among
educational, community, business, environmental, labor, and
governmental entities and the public at large.


Sec. 9311.  Annual report

     As a separate part of the annual report submitted pursuant to
section 7321 (editor's note:  I'm not sure what this refers to) of
this title, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an annual report of
activities pursuant to this chapter.  Such report shall
include --

     (a) modifications to the comprehensive program management plan
for implementing this chapter;

     (b) an evaluation of the status of national magnetic fusion
energy program in the United States (editor's note: error in wording
was in the original);

     (c) a summary of the findings and recommendations of any
report of the Energy Research Advisory Board on magnetic fusion;

     (d) an analysis of the progress made in commercializing
magnetic fusion technology; and

     (e) suggestions for improvements in the national magnetic
fusion program, including recommendations for legislation.


Sec. 9312.  Authorization of appropriations; contract authority

     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, such sums as
are provided in the annual authorization Act pursuant to section 7270
of this title.

Jim Bowery      619/295-8868  PO Box 1981    La Jolla, CA 92038

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Barry Merriman /  The nature of skeptics
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The nature of skeptics
Date: 26 Jul 1995 03:38:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

The CF boosters here frequently characterize the 
local skeptics as pathologically resistant to new ideas,
closed minded and ignorant of the subject matter, 
fearful that CF will disrupt the status quo, etc.



I can't speak for others, but let me note:


(i) the _vast_ majority of scientists, even fusioneers,  have already dismissed
cold fusion. It doesn't even enter their minds, much less worry about it. 
They are the ones you *might* be justified in cosidering as close minded
on the subject (more likely, they just may have too many other things
to think about already, that they feel are more promising). 
The scientists that frequent this news group are the _open minded_ ones, for  
they have not dismissed the subject entirely.

(ii) If I had my choice, CF would exist, produce useful energy 
and I would quit my hot fusion job tomorrow.  I work on fusion because
I want to have clean, compact, mobile, powerful long term energy sources,
not because I need a job. I am for whatever works best. 

(iii) I agree that there is no apriori basis for rejecting
the cold fusion process, and that the idea of lattice catalyzed 
fusion, while not directly supported by any existing theory,
is conceptually plausible enough to warrant experimental investigation.
Further, when P&F was first announced, I was very optimistic about their
claims. (The idea that solid state/cold fusion might be possible was
not new to the fusion community...but no one had thought up a probably
specific system such as Pd+D to realize such speculations. In my case,
I had known about such speculations for solid state catalyzed nuclear
reactions for about 3 years prior to the P&F public announcements, based
on some speculative articles I had read in Fusion Technology; in fact,
I had even made a research proposal to study such things, though I 
had no good idea how to realize such a system...and I still don't.).

(iv) However, I also feel its important to know the barriers to
solid state fusion, based on what we do know about fusion, and
nuclear physics, and to properly criticize tentative rationals for CF
on these grounds---i.e. certain things will defiently not work, 
and anything that does work must solve certain problems.  
The original P&F theory, for what its worth, 
was untenable: you cannot overcome the coulomb barrier by squeezing 
D together in the Pd lattice. The pressures simply are not sufficient. If there
is a way to stimulate fusion, its got to be an end-around run,
not a direct up-the-middle overcome the coulomb barrier 
with classical physics concepts.
(fracto-fusion can take the up-the-middle approach, buts its
just hot fusion in the small, and subject to all the same limitations,
like p + p fusion definitely not allowed). 

The above is just my own opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised
if many of the other local skeptics feel the same way. We
are all in favor of CF, but not prepared to abandon rigorous
experimental and theoretical standards, precisely because the 
prospect is itself so speculative. As much as I would like
it to be so, I remain unconvinced that the phenomena has been 
demonstrated to exist. I won't be convinced until there is a
widely replicated experiment, and if it is entirely calorimetric
(with no nuclear signatures) I'd like to see it verified at NIST.
That is my simple personal criteria for acceptance of existence.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: MIT cold fusion patent?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT cold fusion patent?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 03:26:09 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 23 Jul 95 21:48:22 MDT, ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) wrote:

>In Saturday's Deseret News (out of Salt Lake City) there's a front-page
>story claiming MIT has patented a "cold-fusionlike device". The inventers
>claim that it "releases the latent heat" of hydrogen through something
>called "anharmonic vibrations". While they say it is possible that fusion
>might occur, it would not be significant and is not the source of energy
>tapped by the device.

>I was wondering if anyone knows anything more about the device; in particular,
>the phrase "anharmonic vibration" makes no sense to me.
>-- 
>----------------+------------------------------------------------------
>Roger Ivie      | "Did you know the AIDS spore can live in sweaters?"
>ivie@cc.usu.edu |          -- Overheard at Hansen Planetarium
They didn't happen to mention the patent number did they? Or could you
possibly get it from the reporter?

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 /   /  Re: Marshall Dudley theory
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory
Date: 26 Jul 1995 01:14:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Marshall Dudley wrote:

>There are a number of process in which excited particles do not lose
their
>energy via a half-life mode.  Betas and alphas are 2 very good examples.
>If you track their penetration into a substance you will find that all
with
>the same intial energy penetrate similar distances before stopping.  If
the
>material has a flat absorption curve vs energy, the energy loss per unit
of
>time will be basically constant.
> 
>The hypothesis Mr. Blue was comparing the decays to was a cooling by an
>excited
>nucleus being in the cloud of electrons of a Pd atom.  One would expect
that
>the cooling from such an arrangement to not obey the half-life model at
all
>and
>probably come closer to a linear or exponential model (if such cooling
can
>indeed happen).

The problem with the above is that you are drawing an analogy between the
de-excitation of a bound state and the slowing down of a free particle by
ionization. This analogy doesn't work at all, due to the completely
different behavior of free particles and bound states. As I said in my
post, a bound state has a discrete spectrum of energy levels. A free
particle has a continuous spectrum of energy levels (kinetic energy in
that case). The transitions between the levels *all* obey a half-life time
distribution. This is a fundamental quantum mechanical result.

Your electron cooling model might work if this weren't the case, however
it would still require that an electromagnetic interaction overpower a
strong interaction, and in the absence of a conservation law forbidding
the strong decay it is the strong decay that wins (by several orders of
magnitude). And besides, it *is* the case.

>There are configurations such that you can get a near "constant delay"
from one event >to another though.

As I said in my post, not in the decay of an excited state in quantum
mechanics. This is not just due to the fact that nobody has ever seen
this. The absence of such a decay is fundamental to quantum mechanics.

Best wishes.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Brian McEwen /  fusion faq
     
Originally-From: bmcewen@cln.etc.bc.ca (Brian McEwen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion faq
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 05:37:07 GMT
Organization: Education Technology Centre of B.C.


Hello!
I'm a teacher in BC Canada.
I found the fusion faq provided by rfheeter a valuable resource
and so pulled it down from your newsgroup.  I only acquired
'part 1' and it was indicated that there was more to come/already
out there.  I can't seem to locate any more (part 2 and 3).  Is 
there more?  Am I being a tool? [I think the latter is more 
likely].  Thanx!
B. McEwen.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbmcewen cudfnBrian cudlnMcEwen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Chris Costello /  Re: MIT cold fusion patent?
     
Originally-From: cjc@esi.roc.servtech.com (Chris Costello)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT cold fusion patent?
Date: 26 Jul 1995 10:10:51 GMT
Organization: Energy Science, Inc.

In article <3v4g34$899@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) says:
>
>On 23 Jul 95 21:48:22 MDT, ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) wrote:
>
>>In Saturday's Deseret News (out of Salt Lake City) there's a front-page
>>story claiming MIT has patented a "cold-fusionlike device". The inventers

Robin - U.S. Patent No. 05411654, "Method of maximizng anharmonic oscillations
in deuterated alloys", may be what you are looking for.

Good Luck,
Chris Costello
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencjc cudfnChris cudlnCostello cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / John Logajan /  channel capacity
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
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: channel capacity
Date: 26 Jul 1995 01:27:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote:
: 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

I have a magazine article that says that the telco specs phone lines to
have -70dbm or less noise, that 0dbm = 1mw @ 600ohms, and that datacom
power level is -10dbm.  Bandpass is -10db or greater from 500 to 3500 Hz.

We know that Shannon formula for channel capacity is:

C = W * 1.44 * log(e)(1 + S/N)

Where:

C = bits per second
W = bandwidth, hertz
S = signal power
N = noise power

So, taking the above numbers we get:

49,734 bps = 3000 Hz * 1.44 * log(e)(1 + 0.1mw/0.000001mw)

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if most phone lines don't live up to
the telco's own specifications, so the above theoretical maximum channel
capacity is unlikely to exist generally.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 27 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
