1995.08.01 / Tom Potter /  Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math
Subject: Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
Date: 1 Aug 1995 11:18:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul31.122826.6779@leeds.ac.uk> pmt6jrp@gps.leeds.ac.uk (J R
Partington) writes: 
>
>In article <3vbaha$ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>>
>>   Get used to the Internet, what you post can be eternally held
>>against you. And as I remarked before, that perhaps 50% of the
regulars
>>to Usenet have now eliminated their chances of ever being high
>>political figure, because their posts evince their bigotry and
>>prejudices and plain dumb stupidity.
>>
>
>I don't think bigotry, prejudices and plain dumb stupidity ever
>hindered one's chances of high political office, alas. In fact
>some would say that they were prerequisites.
>
>
>
>-- 
>Dr Jonathan R. Partington,      Tel: UK: (0113) 2335123. Int: +44 113
2335123
>School of Mathematics,          Fax: UK: (0113) 2335145. Int: +44 113
2335145
>University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.    Email:
J.R.Partington@leeds.ac.uk

Are you suggesting that Bullock and Merriman go into politics?

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA  
Date: 1 Aug 1995 11:22:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vk418$vl9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
>   Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  Has
> anyone been sued for systematic attack on the Internet yet? And if any
> law firm out there in California interested in this case of mine,
> please contact me. For if there is no legal precedence, and a law firm
> sees enough money in my case. I will be more than happy to take a
> sabbatical from Dartmouth in order to execute such a lawsuit. People
> whose intent is to victimize, and delight in it, need to see some
> action . .


  Could someone please provide me with the email address of the law
firm which was recently hired by a European physicist and won a
judgement on Canadian organization?  Use a winner with a track record
and known experience in these matters.  Always be pragmatic.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 1 Aug 1995 11:39:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vjj5f$u70@saba.info.ucla.edu>
barry@fourier.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> Mr. Plutonium:
> 
> I apologize for publicy  calling you mentally ill. You
> are correct that succh accusations have no place on 
> USENET, and that such personal attacks serve no good
> purpose. In the future, I will make no further
> personal comments regarding you, or your posts.
> 
> Barry

  I had not seen this post, and just earlier I had posted for the names
of lawyers. 

  I accept your apology only 1/2 way, Mr. Merriman. The other half, I
want you to send me 500 bucks and I will have a complete physical and
mental checkup at the hospital and post that checkup to the newsgroups.

   Your roughly 50 posts to the world accusing me of mental illness was
a vicious and systematic attack on my good name and future social well
being. If you had done it a few times I would have overlooked it. But
your behaviour was so vicious and extreme that I hope to set an example
in the future that others may follow.

   So, please send the 500 bucks and I will have the checkup and post
the results and then this whole matter is behind me.

   My address:  Archimedes Plutonium, c/o Dartmouth College  Hanover NH
 03755

  Thanks
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Erik Francis /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Originally-From: pha38@keele.ac.uk (F.A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Subject: Re: About Abian
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 18:22:01 PDT
Date: 1 Feb 1994 00:09:45 GMT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE
Organization: Keele University, England

jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu (John Chandler) writes:

> In article <ciP39c6w200w@alcyone.darkside.com>,
> Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>
> >After the years that Ludwig has been around -- and apparently of the 
> >campus spectacle that he makes of himself, as others have described in 
> >the past -- I think it's pretty clear that Dartmouth officials are 
> >aware of him.
> 
> "spectacle"?  Can anyone describe this?

Here's what I meant.  Note that this is back when Ludwig called 
himself Ludwig Plutonium, not Archimedes.  Note that I have no idea if 
this guy was telling the truth, but I can't see any reason for him to 
fabricate the story, particularly when Ludwig himself at the time 
didn't deny it.

-----

Originally-From: pha38@keele.ac.uk (F.A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: About Abian
Message-ID: <2ik6k9$3a1@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
Date: 1 Feb 1994 00:09:45 GMT
References: <28JAN94.17023335@rhea.arc.ab.ca> <schumach.759971454@convex
com> <2ii9cc$8p1@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
Distribution: world
Organization: Keele University, England
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk

In article <schumach.759971454@convex.com>,
Richard A. Schumacher <schumach@convex.com> wrote:
>In <28JAN94.17023335@rhea.arc.ab.ca> thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca writes:
>
>>Is this for real?  I always assumed that the guy [Abian]
>>was just mocking everyone
>>on sci.astro by posting gibberish and then chuckling over how people
>>would respond to it and try to prove it wrong.  I assumed it was all
>>just flamebait.
>
>That appears to be the case with "Ludwig Plutonium", but Prof.
>Abian has never been anything but completely serious about his odd
>ideas. 

No, I know Ludwig Plutonium. He's a dishwasher at the Hanover Inn, 
across the street from Dartmouth College, in Hanover, New Hampshire. His
job gives him an account at Dartmouth, and that's how he gets Internet
access. Dartmouth has a very modern computing environment, in which all
the dorm rooms and offices are on the net, and all undergraduates are
required to have Macs. All college employees get accounts and nearly all
use Macs in their work, even campus security and buildings and grounds.
It's easy, with all that good software Dartmouth cooks up itself, and they
of course have a newsreader, Internews.

I have no doubt Ludwig is absolutely sincere about what he posts, and that
he truly believes what he says: that he is the world's greatest mind, and
that the Universe is a giant plutonium atom that has revealed itself to him.
Ludwig is a distinctive fellow: I used to often see him walking around
campus, or in the science library, in a bright orange hunting cap over his
shaved head, often in a shirt on which he has written chemical and nuclear
symbols. I used to see him all the time down in the computer center,
working on stuff, and is usually a quiet individual.

The kids at Dartmouth make entirely too many jokes at his expense.
I think it's mean. By the way, I believe Ludwig Plutonium is his real name:
he had it legally changed shortly after arriving at Dartmouth, in 1990, if
memory serves me right. His name used to be Ludwig von Ludwig.

-----

> In particular, does "Archimedes Plutonium" ever attend Math Dept.
> colloquia and offer his opinion of the speaker's work?

It's my impression that Ludwig does not take any participation in the 
actual math department at Dartmouth, although I may well be incorrect.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W   GIGO, Omega, Psi  oo  the fourth R  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-   ftmfbs   kmmfa / \
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._   Founder SBWF   http://www.spies.com/max/ \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / mitchell swartz /  Responding to the Dick Blue Challenge
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Responding to the Dick Blue Challenge
Subject: Re: Winning the Swartz challange
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 14:05:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9507311653.AA17456@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Winning the Swartz challange
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrotes:

 -  -  Mitchell Swartz should no better than to assert that he knows something
 - about nuclear physics that I don't.  I gladly accept his challange, and
 - if he knew enough to ackowledge his ignorance he will let this one rest.

     No. No. No.   Only Dick nos best.        ;-)X

     ===============================================

 - His data concerning the Moessbauer transistion in 57Fe is probably correct.
 - It is likely that the lifetime for that 14 keV state is indeed a "few
 - score nanoseconds." 

    OK        Now looking forward to your examples of the 10^-40 second
            room temperature deexcitation rates.

     ===============================================

 -  What Mitchell does not seem to understand is that
 - cold fusion does not involve that particular state in 57Fe - at least
 - not as far as I have heard yet.

 Actually, He4* is a lowest excited state as is the case you
cite.  Is that not correct? 

   Also the table had more than one element, and could
be extended quite a bit with other elements.  

     ===============================================

 - Let us move somewhat closer to the states in 4He 
 - that are supposedly involved
 - in cold fusion.  If you look into the basic phyics of electromagnetic
 - transistions, Mitchell, you might discover that there is a strong energy
 - dependence, even before any consideration is given to the details of nuclear
 - structure.  For a dipole transition at 10 MeV as opposed to one at 10 keV
 - one can expect to see a decrease in the lifetime by something like NINE
 - ORDERS of MAGNITUDE.

  Dick, the first excited state of He4* is 20.21 MeV about ground, and
 has an isospin parity of 0.  Is that correct or not?  Same for the
second and third lowest excited nuclear states which differ by
parity, total angular momentum, but not isospin.  Is that correct or not?

 How can the first excited state of He4* deexcite
by electric dipole transition to the ground state (same isospin parity)?
Since you KNOW so much (see above),
am looking forward to hear about this specific issue.  Thanks

     ===============================================

 - Reference:  "Introduction to Nuclear Physics," by Harald Enge.  page 260.
 - A graph of the Weisskopf-Moszkowski single particle transistion estimates.
 - Enge is an MIT man so this must be a good reference, right?

  Have been very lucky to have heard Dr. Victor Weisskopf in many lectures
in the late '60s and '70s.  The best involved ab initio calculations about
the maximum size of a mountain and planet.  Thanks for
reviving a too-faded memory,  Dick, and thanks for trying to continue
the science with the references.  

     ===============================================

 - Since the widths are several MeV, the lifetime estimate is correctly given
 - by Barry Merryman.  He did not commit a faux pas, Michell.  You did!

  Actually, you are wrong, Dick.   We both did one.
Barry Merriman's?  He said that when he corrected this issue by using
the natural line width instead of the difference in energy, as was
pointed out to him, his calculations finally came out right.  

      > >Notice that if you put in the right numbers the relationship
     > >between the natural line width and lifetime remains 
      > >correct and of the proper magnitude.
   -bm  "Good. That _partially_ answers my question---I.e. 
   -bm  the question was why 
   -bm  the transition times were 10^6 times longer than those suggested by 
   -bm  Eo above, and your answer is that the line width of these transitions
   -bm  is << Eo. Makes perfect sense to me. "
            [barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
         30 Jul 1995 Message-ID: <3vgujt$s8h@soenews.ucsd.edu>]

  My faux pax was attempting to contribute to this "college", presently
coexisting with a nest of vipers.

  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Bob Kovsky /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
     
Originally-From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 14:29:05 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>  Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  

	I am a California lawyer, Archimedes, State Bar #66071.

	I have not seen all the postings that you consider defamatory, 
but, based on what I do know, I do not think you have much of a case.

	When a person actively involves himself in matters of public 
debate and controversy, he becomes a "public figure" for purposes of the 
law of defamation.  (Defamation includes both oral utterances -- slander 
-- and written utterances --libel.)  A "public figure" has a higher 
standard of proof in a defamation case:  he must prove that the defendant 
knew the utterances were false and that the defendant uttered them with 
malice.  

	This legal principle was first announced in the leading case of
"New York Times v. Sullivan."  (Yes, the NYT established the rule of law
that prevents your suit.) Sullivan was a sheriff in a Southern state who
sued the NYT after the paper wrote an article ascribing actions to him
that were injurious to civil rights workers.  Our Supreme Court held that
the sheriff could not go forward with his suit and could not get a local 
jury to determine whether the NYT had to pay him damages. 

	In my opinion, a judge deciding whether your case could be 
carried forward would say:  "Mr. Plutonium, you posted many articles to 
sci.physics in which you proposed theories that deviated from the 
standards of the science.  Moreover, you did so in a fashion that 
highlighted the unconventional tenor of your ideas.  Indeed, one might 
almost say you trumpeted the distinctive exotic characteristics of your 
approach.  Under these circumstances, Mr. Merriman's declarations 
that you are mentally ill (however false they might be) are not 
actionable.   Galileo had to put up with false statements about his 
character.  The Wright Brothers had to put up with false statements that 
they were mentally ill.  So did Robert Goddard and many other scientists 
whom history has proved right.  It's the price of glory."

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Bob Kovsky /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
     
Originally-From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 14:40:12 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I wrote:
>
>	I am a California lawyer, Archimedes, State Bar #66071.

	I should also add that an utterance is actionable only if it is a 
matter of fact ("John Smith got fired from his last job for stealing.") 
and not simply a matter of opinion ("John Smith is lazy.")  From what I 
have seen of Mr. Merriman's articles, I suspect his utterances would be 
classified as opinion.  Courts are increasingly reluctant to involve 
themselves in disputes of this nature.  Moreover, one must also consider 
the nature of "Usenet," which is a medium in which "flames" are more 
commonplace than mosquitos in a swamp.  (After having been flamed for 
rather mild remarks about "The Faith of a Physicist," I no longer bother 
offering any of my own unconventional ideas to this group.)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
Date: 1 Aug 1995 15:15:02 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <kovskyDCMzF1.1s7@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:

>	I should also add that an utterance is actionable only if it is a 
>matter of fact ("John Smith got fired from his last job for stealing.") 
>and not simply a matter of opinion ("John Smith is lazy.")  From what I 
>have seen of Mr. Merriman's articles, I suspect his utterances would be 
>classified as opinion.

Also, I think that Mr. Plutonium would have a hard time convincing a jury
that his reputation has been damaged by being called mentally ill.  If
Merriman's lawyer called (say) Jed Rothwell, we would find out that having
the "establishment" call you mentally ill is actually a sign that you
are a genius.

This is not to express any opinion on whether or not I think Mr. Plutonium
is mentally ill, only that his being labelled as such can't possibly 
affect his reputation (such as it is) one way or another, and so it's not
clear that such a statement is defamatory to begin with.
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <3vlg3r$6ik@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3vlg3r$6ik@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 1 Aug 1995 15:16:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<3vlg3r$6ik@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Responding to the Dick Blue Challenge
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responding to the Dick Blue Challenge
Date: 1 Aug 1995 15:19:27 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DCMxt6.2Ku@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>     No. No. No.   Only Dick nos best.        ;-)X

Word of advice:  people who correct the spelling mistakes of previous
posters should be *extremely* sure that they have not made any themselves
(vide infra).

> How can the first excited state of He4* deexcite
>by electric dipole transition to the ground state (same isospin parity)?

Maybe I misread what Dick Blue was saying, but I was under the impression
that he doesn't expect He4* to relax by an electric dipole transition --
while (apparently) you do or did.

>am looking forward to hear about this specific issue.  Thanks

If you agree that an electric dipole transition is unlikely for
He4*, then why did you bring up the Moessbauer effect?

>  My faux pax was attempting to contribute to this "college", presently
           ^^^ 
Is that like the Pax Romana? (vide supra)

>coexisting with a nest of vipers.

I realize that paranoids have more fun -- after all, what could be
better for the ego than the realization that people are actively
attacking you rather than ignoring you -- but I would be more than 
happy to go back to ignoring you if you would be so kind as to
demonstrate my "five order of magnitude error" in the calculation of
the isotope shift for the 57Fe Moessbauer experiment I described in a
prior post.  Or is defending one's claims something that only skeptics
have to do?

Have you had a chance to read the references I emailed you yet?  I
assume that as you are so much more scientifically minded than us poor
scientists, once you have read them, you will issue a full and groveling
retraction of the asinine statements you made in your last post about
hemoglobin.  Don't worry -- on that day, I will indeed be on the
lookout for flying pigs.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Bruce TOK /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 1 Aug 1995 15:27:31 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote:
: Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: : Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com) wrote:

: : [...]

: : :                                             We have a perfectly
: : : good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy than
: : : we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than anything
: : : we will ever be able to build on earth. It is located at a safe
: : : distance of 93 million miles so we do not have to worry about the
: : : radioactive products it creates.

: : Having deleted the first sentence, I heartily agree with this rest.
: : Unfortunately, there is a good reason why this won't work for most
: : countries:  too many people, and the attendant demands on land use.

: That is ridiculous. For most of the worlds population enough power
: could be generated for individual use with solar roofs. You need solar
: farms only for industrial or high density populations. There are plenty
: of desserts in the world that are not usable for much else. 

The problem is the location of those deserts.  For Europe, the closest
desert is the Sahara, not the most politically stable of places.  Using
solar power in Europe is a good idea which is being put into practice
(there _is_ enough ground-level flux here), but it is expensive and will
only work for home energy needs.  As you indicate, industry needs more
than that, much more.  And without fossil fuel the energy for
transportation will have to be generated at the plant level and then
stored and sold in devices not dissimilar from batteries or H-fuel
cells. 

At some point it was reported that the cost of installing a solar
collector roof in terms of energy was on the order of several decades of
home-use energy.  I do not know the status of this claim; perhaps
someone reading this does.

Problem is, Paul, "industrial or high density populations" does indeed
include most of the world, if not now then certainly 50 years from now.
The alternative is to condemn many masses to serf-hood.  The large
emerging industrial nations will not be satisfied with that (nor should
they be expected to be).  Population levels will have to drop before all
this can be powered with solar energy.

: The *only* long term alternatives are solar
: or nuclear (including fusion). [...]

Absolutely agreed.  I would agree that solar power with a sustainable
population is the best long-term solution, but we have to get there.  I
am not so optimistic that it can be done peacably, given current
population levels and growth rates. There is going to be a _lot_ of
environmental devastation in the meantime, even just from "normal"
activity. 


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Paul Budnik /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 1 Aug 1995 07:46:00 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Matthew Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
: Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote:

: : Nuclear is obscenely expensive when you
: : take into account the cost of storing and monitoring the radioactive
: : by products for 50,000 years or more.

: Same for fossil fuels but nobody is making them pay.  The present existing
: health damage from fossil fuel burning is quantifiable and real and present
: TODAY but exxon isn't required to pay for this.  Can you imagine if they
: had to pay their amortized medical bills?  

I think that would be an excellent idea and have for decades. However
the cost of storing and monitoring nuclear waste products for an essentially
indefinite future is not quantifiable. 

: And what if the climate does bifurcate into something nasty?  Who pays then?

We all will. 

: I mean i think it's Absolutely Fabulous if all the waste by products from
: national scale energy production can be brought together and sunk into
: a mine 20 miles from anywhere and be monitored around the clock and be
: trivially detected at levels much below harmful ones. 

I think we have no right to impose such a burden on future generations
for our comfort. We simply do not know the costs but the costs of dealing
with nuclear waste today are enormous. Fantasies about how easy this
will be have as much credence as the old view that nuclear power would
be too cheap to meter!

: : Solar is the only practical
: : alternative. A recent issue of Business Week mentioned that it is expected
: : to be competitive with grid power in many major urban areas by the
: : year 2,000. With wide spread use prices will fall much more rapidly
: : and efficiencies will increase significantly. It is only a matter of
: : time and thinking with a little common sense.

: Nothing's wrong with solar at all, except for the fact it's cloudy alot of
: places.

Solar power can work in cloudy conditions. Energy storage is an issue
with solar power but it is a problem that has workable solutions now
and will have cheaper and better ones in the future.

: And what about environmental problems from very large scale silicon
: processing?  (all those nasty solvents to make chips are already a problem
: making 8 inch high value wafers).

Today cost efficient solar cells are made from amorphous silicon not
silicon wafers. I am sure they have some nasty by products but it
is a different and far less expensive process.

These are all chemical problems that can be quantified and dealt with.
I agree that every form of energy should pay for dealing with all its
by products in a way that is environmentally sound and sustainable.
I have little doubt that solar power will in a few decades be by far
the cheapest alternative on that score. Solar is not limited 
to solar cells. If you grow trees for firewood you are using solar
power. I do not think tree farming will be a major source of power
but we may wind up growing some fuels as part of a total solution.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 11:19:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vemoi$9lk@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2907951648530001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> >  barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > I find it interesting that you don't offer up as equally likely
> > > that the device simply doesn't work, and experimental error is
> > > the source of the conflicting results.
> > 
> 
> 
> > [What if] one fails to find a reasonable source for the error? 
> > The clearest example
> > of this difficulty is the hot water run on the Griggs device, where simple
> > calculations of the heat imparted to the water divided by the equivalent
> > heat of the electric power consumed gives percentage COP's of 110% for
> > hours and hours and days and days. 
> 
> 10% Xcess is too subtle for me. Sorry. If the 10% figure came from a NIST
> report, I would take it seriously. Coming from an industrial development
> lab, that is not strong enough evidence. 

***{Barry, I largely sympathize with your suspicion of a 10% excess and
with your claim that such errors could result from cumulative measurement
errors. I said much the same thing to Jeff in e-mail, and I was not
convinced by his responses. What did convince me, however, was the data on
the Griggs hot water runs, as posted on Logajan's web site. I discovered
that, by working my way through the calculations, my generalized
suspicions ceased to make sense to me. Why? Because of the simplicity of
the design and of the calculations. 

Let me be very specific: in the hot water runs, tap water flows into the
rotor housing of the Hydrosonic Pump and then out again through the other
side, and thence goes down the drain. The temperature of the input water
flow is measured by six calibrated thermocouples, and an average taken.
Likewise, the outflow temperature is measured by six calibrated
thermocouples and an average taken. For example, during one sample
interval the average incoming water temperature was 80.39 degrees F., and
the average outgoing water temperature was 148.2 degrees F. Subtracting
the former from the latter, we get an average change in temperature of
67.86 degrees F. During the test, the flow rate of the water held steady
at 5.382 gallons/min. Thus the heat added to the water by the device in an
hour was 5.382 times 60 times 8.3 times 67.86, which gives 181,881 BTUšs
per hour. (Note: gallons per minute times 60 gives gallons per hour, and
gallons per hour times 8.3 gives pounds per hour. Number of pounds per
hour times the Farenheit temperature change per pound gives BTUšs per
hour.)

Do you have any problems with any of this? Do you see any possibility of a
major error here?
  
Moving on: input energy was calculated using (a) torque measured on the
rotor shaft by a dynamometer: 1161.8 inch-pounds; and (b) shaft rotation
rate: 3561 rpm. Calculated power comes out to about 65.63 HP, which
equates to a rate of 167,084 BTUšs per hour. [Note: The calculation makes
use of the fact that power in ft-lbs/sec equals torque in ft-lbs times
angular speed in radians per sec. First, convert to appropriate units:
1161.8 inch-pounds = 96.8 ft-lbs; and 3561 rpm times 2ŧ/60 = 372.9 radians
per sec. (Since each rpm equals 1 revolution or 360 degrees, it also
equals 2ŧ radians.) Power thus is 96.8 times 372.9 = 36097 ft-lbs/sec.
Since 1 HP is 550 ft-lbs/sec, we then divide by 550 to get 65.63 HP as our
input power reading, which equates to 167,084 BTUšs per hour.] In
addition, input energy was measured by means of a power meter, yielding a
rate of about 48.9 KW, which is roughly the same as 65.63 HP. 

Do you see any major errors looming up in any of this? 

If you are still with me, then I assume you agree that the COP
(coefficient of performance) is 181,881 divided by 167,084, or 1.089,
(which, in percentage terms, is 108.9%). Note further that this device is
producing considerably more heat than that imparted to the water: heat
transferred from the pump housing and from the electric motor housing to
the external environment is not being taken into account by this
calculation. (According to Jed, the pump housing is *very* hot, and
radiates heat as if it were an electric space heater.) What this means,
speaking conservatively, is that you would need to find an error on the
order of 20% to invalidate these results. My question for you, therefore,
is this: how can it be that this device is not performing over unity,
given the facts of the situation as just described? If you can, please be
specific: tell me where the error, or errors, may lie. And remember, the
device produces these sorts of results over and over, for hours and hours.
Some other data frames (taken at one minute intervals) gave the following
COPs:

1.089
1.095
1.09
1.103
1.097
1.098
1.10
1.091
1.105
1.109

Where is the possibility of a major error, Barry? As I noted above, before
I actually focused my mind on these data and worked through the
calculations, I had doubts very similar to yours.  But, afterwards, I
discovered that my doubts were gone. The reason: it is one thing to, upon
discovering that your wallet isn't in your pocket, theorize that it may be
on the kitchen table, and quite another to hold to that theory after
checking the kitchen table and discovering that the wallet isn't there! By
the same token, it is OK to hypothesize that an experimental result may be
due to errors before checking out the design. But it makes no sense to
hold to that hypothesis after checking out the design and finding that the
suspected possibilities for error aren't there! --Mitchell Jones}*** 


Yes, it warrants some further
> investigation, but only folks working directly with Griggs, on
> a long term basis,  are likely to get to the bottom of that.
> 
> > How can this be, when a simple electrical resistance heater,
> > immersed in a heavily insulated water flow and consuming the same amount
> > of power, would only give percentage COP's of 98 or 99%? 
> 
> "would", or "did". I.e., was a careful blind crossover
> "really" experiment done, in which a suitable blank hot water run was 
> compared with an Xcess heat hot water run?

***{Why would they do that, Barry? That has all been done in the past. It
is, for example, how the equivalence between an energy conversion rate of
3417 BTU's per hour and 1 KW was measured. Once we know that essential
fact, why do we have to keep endlessly repeating the same experiment as a
"blind crossover" to future calorimetry? Why not simply do the
calculations, based on the mathematical relationships that were determined
in the past? The math, after all, is just a shorthand for those past
results. It serves no purpose to do the curve fitting that identifies the
mathematical pattern observed in past experiments, if we then refuse to
use the math and instead go on endlessly repeating the old experiments
over and over again! --Mitchell Jones}***

 If so, was some sort
> of cross over also done on the measuring apparatus, as well. Etc, Etc.
> If one really wanted to get to the bottom of the hot water mode, one
> would suitably isolate the system and key system variables, and start 
> doing methodical comparisons and eliminations.  But 5--10% is a subtle
> effect, undoubtedly near the resolution of their combined instruments
> and protocol.

***{That would be an absurd statement, if made after working your way
through the details of this experiment. I wonder, therefore, if you will
be willing to repeat it after you have done so. Why is it absurd? Because
this experimental result depends on only four things: 

(1) It depends on the ability of Griggs, a professional engineer, to
measure the temperature difference between the water going into, and
emerging from, his Hydrosonic Pump. Such measurements typically have
accuracies of less than half a degree, and, in this type of redundant
setup, would probably be accurate to within a tenth of a degree.

(2) It depends on his ability to measure the water flow rate through his
machine. Here, again, very high accuracies--to tenths or hundredths of a
gallon per minute--are possible through a variety of techniques. 

(3) It depends on his ability to measure the power consumption of his
machine. Again, the technology is readily available to make these sorts of
measurements to very high accuracy. And, using the types of redundant
measures employed by Griggs (i.e., both a dynamometer and a power meter),
the possibilities for error are very, very small. 

(4) It depends on the validity of the calculations which I detailed above. 

Since a ten year old, given a few bucks to purchase a power meter, a flow
meter, and a few temperature probes, could accomplish (1), (2), and (3),
it follows that if you doubt Griggs could do so you are essentially
suggesting that he is a literal retard, and that all of those who have
examined and approved his experimental setup are likewise retards. And if
you doubt (4), then I find myself wondering about your credentials,
because by doubting basic calorimetry that has stood unchallenged for more
than a hundred years and represents the distilled results of tens of
thousands of hours of laboratory work, you cease to bear even a slight
resemblance to any scientist I know. I had assumed that you were a
professor or graduate student at UCSD, attached to the Fusion Energy
Research Center, but if you tell me that these calculations are
significantly in error, I will immediately begin to wonder if, perhaps,
you are merely a janitor or maintenance man who logs onto their computer
system at night. So what say you, Barry? Having now had a walk-through
introduction to the hot water run, do you choose to dispute (1), (2), (3),
or (4), or some combination? I await your response with eager
anticipation. --Mitchell Jones}***
 > 
> > you exhibit an equally blatant
> > lack of interest in facts. Doesn't it bother you *at all* that you cannot
> > find specific sources of error in seemingly simple calorimetry such as
> > this?
> 
> No, because the deviation from what is expected is too small
> to get excited about. It would bother me if *I was the experimenter*,
> but I'm not. As an observer, my basic reaction is: this mode has
> no other signature beyond producing a few percent excess heat. They
> have probably simply optimized the reinforcement of the myriad of
> minor errors in their system---that is the mode. 

***{What "myriad of tiny errors," Barry? Do you deny that Griggs can
measure the temperature difference between the input water and the output
water? Do you deny that he can measure the power consumed by his machine
or the rate at which water flows through it? Do you deny the calculation
of percentage COP? That's all there is to this experiment. There ain't no
"myriad of tiny errors" to accumulate here, old buddy! In fact, here is a
challenge to you: make the ridiculous assumption that Griggs made
systematic, 2% errors in all of the measurements listed above--that he got
the inflow temperature too low, the outflow temperature too high, the flow
rate too high, that he got the torque and rpm too low--and then
recalculate the percentage COP. If you do, you will get 96%, and you will
then have to ask yourself whether the heat loss from the uninsulated rotor
housing and motor could be as low as 4%. To me, it is manifestly obvious
(a) that measurement errors of 2% on all of these variables--let alone
systematic errors--are virtually impossible, and (b) that the unaccounted
heat lost from the rotor housing and motor must vastly exceed 4%. Bottom
line: the hypothesis that this result arises from an accumulation of
measurement errors, upon reflection, simply makes no sense at all.
--Mitchell Jones}***

I leave it to the
> experimenter to locate the problem.

***{There is no "problem" to locate! The situation is too simple! It's
like looking on a bare kitchen table to see if your wallet is there: once
you have looked and failed to find it, you lapse into absurdity if you
continue to maintain that it may be there! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >(As you know, I have certain misgivings about Griggs' steam runs,
> > and I would like to see either longer runs or some accounting of the
> > energy balance in the warmup phase; but the hot water runs seem so simple
> > that I can no longer imagine how the percentage COP's that have been
> > reported could be wrong. Granted, the claim of percentage COP's in excess
> > of 100% is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof; but the hot
> > water run and the associated calculations, it seems to me, are precisely
> > that--extraordinary proof.)
> > 
> > Any comment?
> 
> 
> Jed's steam run experiments are different , in that there is a well
> defined physical mode that kicks in: reduced viscocity of the 
> working fluid, and also that there is enormous Xcess heat. And
> I reach the same conclusion as you---those runs are indeterminant because 
> they are too short to cover up for the uncontrolled warm phase.

***{Not quite. The problem I had with the steam mode experiments related
to what happens at cutoff, when the steam plume is diverted into the
effluent barrel. I was disturbed by the slight rise (1-3%) in
backpressure, and by the possibility that fluid would build up in the
rotor housing, increase the thermal conductivity between the rotor surface
and the fluid flow, and thereby initiate the dumping of stored heat.
However, in order for this to happen, the measured flow rate in the system
would have to drop shortly after cutoff and, when I broached this
possibility with Jed, he informed me that he was staring at the flow meter
when cutoff occurred, and that no such drop in the rate took place. Since
I don't believe that Jed is a liar, my doubts vis-a-vis the steam run are
now confined to the possibility that he may have been mistaken--i.e., that
the flow drop may have occurred and, due to inattention, he may have
missed it. (It is hard to notice everything. Since he did not know, at
that time, that this was something important enough to watch for, it may
have slipped past him.) Bottom line: my doubts about the steam runs have
been reduced to a fairly low ebb, though they are not entirely eliminated.
Given the extraordinarily compelling nature of the hot water results,
however, I am now strongly inclined to accept the validity of excess heat
in the steam runs as well. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> The hot water runs cannot compensate for the failing of the steam run
> experiments. They are different beasts.

***{If excess energy is being produced in the hot water runs, who would
doubt that it is being produced in the steam runs? Bottom line: unless you
come up with some concrete error possibilities in the hot water runs, they
will, in fact, compensate for the shortcomings in the steam run
experiments. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Doug Merritt /  Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA  lawyers
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA  lawyers
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 17:17:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3vk418$vl9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>  Can I go to the hospital and have the checkup and just mail the bill
>to his organization since he works for the govt?

I would guess that you could get that checkup from Dartmouth health
services for very close to free.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 18:20:53 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3vlen8$nri@mtnmath.com>, paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>Matthew Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
>: Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote:
>
>: : Nuclear is obscenely expensive when you
>: : take into account the cost of storing and monitoring the radioactive
>: : by products for 50,000 years or more.
>
>: Same for fossil fuels but nobody is making them pay.  The present existing
>: health damage from fossil fuel burning is quantifiable and real and present
>: TODAY but exxon isn't required to pay for this.  Can you imagine if they
>: had to pay their amortized medical bills?  
>
>I think that would be an excellent idea and have for decades.

I always find it funny when people suggest that the oil company's should pay 
for any indirect damage or expense related to burning fossil fuels, while at the
same time assuming that their own energy costs will remain the same.  Certainly
you can pass a low forcing them to pay for these costs.  Eventually, though, 
it'll be you who will be paying it.  That is, unless you really believe that 
somebody will be willing do deliver you energy below cost.  If you do, I have
a nice bridge on the East River that you may be interested in.  Great View.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmeron cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Mark North /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 18:45:37 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:

>I think that would be an excellent idea and have for decades. However
>the cost of storing and monitoring nuclear waste products for an essentially
>indefinite future is not quantifiable. 

No need to store and monitor. Just vitrify and drop in a subduction zone.
Trivial solution. This would cost next to nothing and have no environmental
consequences.

Mark



















cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:07:06 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-3107951038030001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> I have a folder in my file cabinet labeled
> "CF Articles." That folder is about three inches thick, and contains maybe
> 1% of the articles on this subject that have appeared since March, 1989. I
> made no attempt to select in favor of sarcastic or sneeringly hostile
> articles, and yet, with the exception of articles appearing in the first
> month after the original Pons-Fleischmann announcement and a sprinkling
> thereafter, that is vastly disproportionately what the folder contains.

Fine. I have no reason to disagree, as I have not been monitoring the 
popular media. All I said is that the WSJ 1993 report on Maui conference
was not biased, and that that coinccides with my general impression
of what has appeared in the popular media (I never claimed that
impression is statistically accurate.)

> > 
> > As for the scientific media, it has polarized: most journals
> > ignore, and a few reject, CF, but at least one prominent and appropriate
> > venue---Fusion Tech---gives it ample attention.
> > 
> > SO: where is the uniform media rejection of CF? In your prior
> > post you mentioned the media rejection of CF as if it were 
> > an obvious, accepted fact. If it is, Why does Britz maintain
> > an ever growing bibliography?
> 
> ***{At this point, the explanation for your seemingly mind-boggling
> statements emerges: you are playing word games, rather than engaging in
> serious discourse. Rather than respond to the position actually taken by
> your opponents--to wit: that the mainstream media have *overwhelmingly*
> rejected CF

It is sort of amazing that if they *overwhelminghly* reject CF, that 
the few articles I randomly stumble upon seem rather balanced. Maybe
we have different definitions of balanced.




>--you choose to ignore their actual statements and pretend that
> they have claimed that the rejection has been *uniform*--i.e., that every
> single solitary article on this subject in the mainstream press has been
> negative. 

No---my definition of uniform corresponds to your definition of
overwhelming.

> Given your behavior, I suppose it would be appropriate, at this
> point, for me to deliver forth a string of expletives,

It would? Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough crowd.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Tom Droege /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
Date: 1 Aug 1995 21:36:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <kovskyDCMywH.ys@netcom.com>, kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) says:
>
>Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  
>
>        I am a California lawyer, Archimedes, State Bar #66071.
>
>        I have not seen all the postings that you consider defamatory, 
>but, based on what I do know, I do not think you have much of a case.

Shucks!  I was about to offer the $700 in the till to get old Ludwig 
a mental exam.  I think we all would be interested in the result.

On the $700, I have not yet been able to get Scott Little to say he
will take it.  If you all don't figure out how to spend it by the end
of the year, I will have to go on a big drunk or something and my 
health won't stand it.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 1 Aug 1995 21:46:22 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <21cenlogic-0108951119550001@199.172.8.155>,
Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:

>During the test, the flow rate of the water held steady
>at 5.382 gallons/min. Thus the heat added to the water by the device in an
>hour was 5.382 times 60 times 8.3 times 67.86, which gives 181,881 BTUšs
>per hour. 

What was the temperature of the water at the flow meter?
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: True cost of fission fuel
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: True cost of fission fuel
Date: 1 Aug 1995 20:04:49 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Chris Costello (cjc@esi.roc.servtech.com) wrote:
: I have heard that the true cost of fission fuel (4% U235) is actually so
: high as to make fission plants extreemly difficult to justify economically.
: This line of reasoning states that the fission fuel is available only  
: because it is a byproduct of weapons manufacture.

Um, *depleted* uranium is a byproduct of weapons manufacturing.

Do you mean to say that the capital and research cost of inventing 
and building enrichment technology was subsidized by weapons
expenditures?

To some extent {I have no idea how much} this has to be true, just as a fair
amount of present microcomputer and communications technology was originally
subsidized by the needs of space research and jet transport technology was
subsidized by bomber development.

: Can someone respond to this with substantiating data?  The true cost of
: fission fuel would indeed be interesting to know.

This is interesting as an intellectual exercise, but not necessarily
enlightenting for future policy.  A prime rule of business is "ignore
sunk costs".   What matters for the future is the *present* state
of affairs, not what it took to get to where we are.  

This is a common problem in East Bloc "companies", they think "we spent so
much money on this plant we *have* to keep on running it" even though
they're *destroying* wealth {end products less valuable than raw materials
plus labor cost} rather than creating it. 

It would be supremely foolish to needlessly punish ourselves by thinking
"oh those enrichment plants were built with Bomb Money, it wouldn't
 have been economical by themselves for civilian power so we'll ignore
 their existence."

Well I think of it the other way around; at least that Bomb Money (that
would be spent no matter what) will get us some small direct economic benefit
besides (arguably) contributing to the dissolution of the USSR.

And besides, right now we have buttloads of enriched U, the price is
very low.  Our predecessors sacrificed for us. 

: Thanks in advance for any information!
: Chris Costello

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 12:03 -0500 (EST)

mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
 
-> The threshold is vary simple to calculate, it is the difference of the
-> total of the masses for the initial and final states. For a particular
-> decay mode, say
-> He4*  -> h3 + n the decay threshold is M[He4*] - M[H3] - M[n].
 
Ah, I didn't realize it was that basic.  Then the threshold for the above
mode would be -20.596359 Mev.  Initial surplus energy from the D2 fusion
would yield 23.846728 Mev. Thus if some process, phonons, electromagnetic
interaction, electronic cooling and so forth could remove 3.25 Mev prior to
this decay, then this decay mode would no longer be available.
 
I am still exploring the earlier hypothesis, where we have two D2 nucleus
transienting the outer shell of a Pd atom (or alternatively one each in two
adjacent Pd atoms).  Although there have been a number of arguments against
this hypothesis based on the lack of gammas and neutrons, these are the same
arguments that come up on all CF hypotheses. There has not been a lot of
theoretical objection to this model up to the point of fusion.
 
Now let's say that the two D2 do fuse due to shielding of the electrons in the
outer shell.  Since the D2 are being shielded from each other by at least one
electron in the outer shell, it is possible that we end up with a 3 body
reaction, that is when the D2 fuse, we have an electron caught in the middle.
This electron could be captured via electron capture.  This can only be
accomplished because of the large energy available from the D2-D2 fusion. The
resulting nucleus would be H4, which would have such a short half-life, it is
not even listed in the tables. The electron would be ejected virtually
simultaneously with the fusion as a beta, and if it carried 3.25 Mev or more of
energy off then you would expect the remaining He4 nucleus to NOT decay by
neutron/gamma emission. At that point it would have all the time in the world
to lose it's energy via non-strong interaction modes.
 
Actually this hypothesis should be testable.  A beta of this energy should
fluoresce the PD giving off low energy X-rays.  The X-rays would most likely
not be easily detectable with detectors, but they should have no problem
fogging X-ray film.  I would suggest that if this is verified, then it would
strengthen the possibility that this hyphothesis, or one similar to is may have
some validity.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  MIT CF patent (full text - long)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT CF patent (full text - long)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:56 -0500 (EST)

I obtained the MIT CF patent from a friend at ORNL.  Here is the full text
for those interested, reformatted for 80 column screens:

PATN  Patent Bibliographic Information
WKU     Patent Number:				05411654
SRC     Series Code:				8
APN     Application Number:			0868213
APT     Application Type:			1
ART     Art Unit:				112
APD     Application Filing Date:		19930702
TTL     Title of Invention:			Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillatio
s in deuterated alloys
ISD     Issue Date:				19950502
NCL     Number of Claims:			16
ECL     Exemplary Claim Number:			1
EXP     Primary Examiner:			Valentine; Donald R.
NDR     Number of Drawings Sheets:		12
NFG     Number of Figures:			22

INVT  Inventor Information
NAM     Inventor Name:				Ahern; Brian S.
CTY     Inventor City:				Boxboro
STA     Inventor State:				MA

INVT  Inventor Information
NAM     Inventor Name:				Johnson; Keith H.
CTY     Inventor City:				Cambridge
STA     Inventor State:				MA

INVT  Inventor Information
NAM     Inventor Name:				Clark, Jr.; Harry R.
CTY     Inventor City:				Townsend
STA     Inventor State:				MA

ASSG  Assignee Information
NAM     Assignee Name:				Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CTY     Assignee City:				Cambridge
STA     Assignee State:				MA
COD     Assignee Type Code:			02

CLAS  Classification
OCL     Original U.S. Classification:			204242
XCL     Cross Reference Classification:			204292
XCL     Cross Reference Classification:			204293
XCL     Cross Reference Classification:			204290R
EDF     International Classification Edition Field:	6
ICL     International Classification:			C25B  900
ICL     International Classification:			C25B 1108
ICL     International Classification:			C25C  700
ICL     International Classification:			C25C  702
FSC     Field of Search Class:				156
FSS     Field of Search Subclass:			656
FSC     Field of Search Class:				204
FSS     Field of Search Subclass:			129.1;129.55;140;129.35;224
M;129.43;DIG. 9;129.35;129.7;242;292;293;290 R

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					3219481
ISD     Issue Date:					19651100
NAM     Patentee Name:					Chodosh et al.
XCL     Cross Reference to U.S. Classification:		204140

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					3620844
ISD     Issue Date:					19711100
NAM     Patentee Name:					Wicke et al.
OCL     Original U.S. Classification:			429 44

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					4222900
ISD     Issue Date:					19800900
NAM     Patentee Name:					Bohl
XCL     Cross Reference to U.S. Classification:		156656

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					4284482
ISD     Issue Date:					19810800
NAM     Patentee Name:					Yahalom
OCL     Original U.S. Classification:			204140

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					4925538
ISD     Issue Date:					19900500
NAM     Patentee Name:					Matsumoto et al.
XCL     Cross Reference to U.S. Classification:		204140

UREF  U.S. Patent Reference
PNO     Patent Number:					5078834
ISD     Issue Date:					19920100
NAM     Patentee Name:					Witte
OCL     Original U.S. Classification:			156656

OREF  Other Reference

Clerjaud and Gelineau, "Strong spin-lattice coupling of Kramers doublets",
Phys. Rev. B, vol. 16, No. 1, Jul. 1977, 82-85.

Singh et al., "Effect of anharmonicity on superconducting metal-hydrogen
systems," Phys. Rev. B, vol. 18, No. 7, Oct. 1978, 3271-74.

Huberman et al., "Chaotic States of Anharmonic Systems in Periodic Fields,"
Phys. Rev. Let., vol. 43, No. 23 Dec. 1979 1743-47.

Kohara et al., "NMR Study of Size Effects in . . . ," Jnl. Phys. Soc. Jap.,
vol. 54, No. 4, Apr. 1985, 1537-1542.

Hamann et al., "Anharmonic vibrational modes of Chemisorbed H . . . ,"
Phys. Rev. B, vol. 37, No. 8, Mar. 1988, 3847-3855.

Hemmes et al., "Isotope effects and pressure dep . . . ," Phys. Rev. B.
vol. 39, No. 7, Mar. 1989, 4110-4118.

Fleschmann et al., "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion . . . ," J.
Electroanal. Chem., 261, Mar. 1989, 301-308.

Jones et al., "Observation of cold nuclear fusion . . . ," Nature, vol.
338, Apr. 1989, 737-740.

Yokoyama et al., "Temperature-dependent EXAFS Study . . . " Jap. J. Appl.
Phys., vol. 28, No. 5, Apr. 1989, L851-L853.

Yokoyama et al., "Temperature dependent EXAFS Study . . . ," Physica B,
158, no month 1989, 255-256.

Johnson et al., "Hydrogen-Hydrogen/Deuterium-Deuterium . . . ," Mod. Phys.
Lett., vol. 3, No. 10, no month 1989, 795-803.

McNally, "On the possibility of a nuclear mass-energy . . . ," Fusion
Tech., vol. 16, May 1989, 237-239.

Prelas, "Advanced energy conversion methods for cold fusion," Fus. Tech.,
vol. 16, May 1989, 240-242.

Ragheb et al., "On the possibility of deuteron disintegration . . . ," Fus.
Tech., vol. 16, May 1989, 243-247.

Rogers, "Isotopic hydrogen fusion in metals," Fusion Tech., vol. 16, May
1989, 254-259.

Oka, "Electrochemically induced deuterium-tritium fusion," Fusion Tech.,
vol. 16, May 1989, 260-262.

Oka et al., "D.sub.2 O-fueled fusion power reactor . . . ," Fusion Tech.,
vol. 16, May 1989, 263-267.

Stacey, "Reactor prospects of muon-catalyzed fusion . . . ," Fusion Tech.,
vol. 16, May 1989, 268-275.

Yokoyama et al., "Temperature-dependent EXAFS study," Jap. J. Appl. Phys.,
vol. 29, No. 10, Oct. 1990, 2052-58.

Huot et al., "Low Hydrogen overpotential Nanocrystalline . . . " J.
Electrochem. Soc., vol. 138, No. 5, May 1991, 1316-1320.

Potvin et al., "Study of the Kinetics of the Hydrogen . . . ," J.
Electrochem. Soc., vol. 138, No. 4, Apr. 1991, 900-905.

Galbaatar et al., "On the influence of anharmonicity . . . ," Physica C,
185-189, no month 1991, 1529-1530.

Suryanarayana et al., "The structure and Mechanical Props . . . ," Mettal.
Trans. A, vol. 23A, Apr. 1992, 1071-1081.

Kolesnikov et al., "Strong anharmonic H(D) vibrations," Physica B 180 &
181, no month 1992, 284-286.

Cahen et al., "Room-temperature, Electric-field . . . ," Science, vol. 258,
Oct. 1992, 271-274.

Koleske et al., "Temperature dependence and anharmonicity of . . . ,"
Surface Science, 298, Jul. 1993, 215-224.

Fleischmann et al., "Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 System . . . ," Physics
Letters, A 176, Mar. 1993, 1-12.

Flach et al., "Integrability and localized excitations . . . ," Physical
Review E, vol. 49, No. 1, Jan. 1994, 836-850.

Reifenschweiler, "reduced radioactivity of tritium . . . ," Physics Letters
A, 184, Dec. 1994, 149-153.

LREP  Legal Information
FR2     Combined Principal Attorney(s):		Lober; Theresa A.

ABST  Abstract

For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species such as
hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter host lattice, the
invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the host
lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice to
achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly small
distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei.  The tuned electron
molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy state giving
rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest
neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest
sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital
topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between
sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the
sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic
oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a condensed
matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to provide
surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the
features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution
of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5,
the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.

GOVT  Government Interest

                     GOVERNMENT RIGHTS IN THE INVENTION

     This invention was made with U.S. Government support under contract No.
F19628-90-C-0002, awarded by the Force. The Government has certain rights in
this invention.

BSUM  Brief Summary

                           FIELD OF THE INVENTION

     This invention relates to techniques for enhancing conditions for
causing anharmonic oscillations in protonated and deuterated alloys, leading
to enhanced electron tunneling between degenerate molecular orbitals and
enhanced nuclei interaction; and more particularly relates to materials
processing techniques for maximizing anharmonic oscillations of hydrogen
isotope nuclei in the interstices of such alloys.

                        BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

     Strong force nuclear interaction of hydrogen isotopes, deuterium in
particular, have been extensively studied in the regime above 30,000 eV.
Tunneling phenomena through the Coulomb barrier has been well characterized
and described as requiring tunneling through a barrier of 0.7 .ANG. in width
and 400,000 eV in height.

     Interaction of nuclei in a palladium-deuterium condensed matter system
has been shown to be 10.sup.7 times more probable than the Coulomb tunneling
described above. The reposed successes in this system are best accounted for
by a palladium-deuterium interaction scheme occurring in the presence of
strong wave function overlap. It has been shown that such wavefunction
overlap may be achieved via specific molecular orbital degeneracy conditions.

     Fundamental shifts in the molecular orbital topology of a condensed
matter system are known to be achievable via sub-micron, nanometrically-sized
surface features. Such nanometric space features alter the surface and near
surface electrochemistry of a condensed matter system, and thereby effect the
orbital topology of the system. This effect cannot be attributed to a simple
increase in surface area; rather, the surface character at the nanoscale can
only be predicted from a real-space molecular orbital perspective. The
resulting properties are purely quantum-mechanical in nature, i.e., they
cannot be derived by a simple extension of continuum elasticity theory to the
nanoregime. Thus, nanometric, low-dimensional surface features can be
expected to interact with electromagnetic fields and radiation in a
corresponding quantum-mechanical nature.

                          SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

     In view of the above considerations, the inventors herein have
recognized that for a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial
species such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter
host lattice, tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the host lattice
via the methods of the invention enhances the anharmonicity of the dissolved
guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a
correspondingly small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The
electron molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy
state giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second
nearest neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals.  Thus, it is the nuclei of
the guest sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the
orbital topology.

     The invention provides methods for enhancing this guest lattice
anharmonicity such that promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between
sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the
sublattice.

     In one aspect, the invention provides a method for producing dynamic
anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a
condensed matter host lattice. In the method, host lattice surfaces are
treated to provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice
surfaces; the features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns.
Thereupon dissolution of the guest species in the host lattice in a ratio of
at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic
oscillations.

     In preferred embodiments, the host lattice comprises palladium, a
palladium silver alloy, preferably Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23, or nickel. The
guest species comprises hydrogen or deuterium. Preferably, the surface
features of the host lattice have a radius of curvature less than 0.3
microns, and more preferably, less than 0.2 microns. The guest species is
dissolved in the host lattice preferably in a ratio of at least 0.8. In
prefer, red embodiments, the dynamic oscillations are characterized by an
oscillation amplitude of at least 0.5 .ANG. and an oscillation frequency of
at least 10.sup.10 Hz. Preferably, the dynamic oscillations are sustained
over time such that interaction of guest species nuclei is initiated and
maintained over time.

     In other preferred embodiments the host lattice comprises a sheet of
palladium silver alloy, preferably wound to form a coiled tube of the sheet.
The gust species dissolution is preferably accomplished by submerging the
host lattice is an electrolytic solution of the guest species. A
platinum-coated anode is submerged in the solution and a voltage is applied
between the host lattice and the anode; preferably the voltage is a square
wave signal having a DC offset voltage, where the signal is characterized by
a time varying amplitude no less than 0.93 volts and a frequency between
about 5 Hz and 2000 Hz.

     In other preferred embodiments, a host lattice is provided by a
continuous wire that is drawn through a diamond die which has been processed
to include relief structures on inner surfaces, the relief structures having
a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Preferably, the wire is a
continuous nickel wire or a multiclad wire consisting of a nickel core
surrounded by a layer of palladium, and the inner surfaces of the die result
from laser processing of the inner surfaces.

     In other preferred embodiments, the host lattic surface is treated by
lapping the surface using a polishing slurry or scribing the surface with a
diamond stylus. Preferably, the diamond stylus has a working tip diameter
less than 0.5 microns; more preferably the scribing is accomplished using an
array of tips all positioned on a common stylus fixture, and after the
scribing, the surface is anodically etched with a hydrochloric acid solution
undergoing ultrasonic agitation.

     In other preferred embodiments, the lattice surface is treated by anodic
etching of the surface, or chemical vapor deposition or molecular beam
epitaxy of host lattice material on a substrate. Preferably, the host lattice
surface is treated by lithographically defining a pattern of surface features
on at least one surface and etching the patterned surface to produce the
surface features. Preferably, the patterned surface is anodically etched, and
the etching results in V-shaped surface grooves, rectangular-shaped surface
channels, or prismatic asperities.

     In another aspect, the invention provides apparatus for producing
dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species. The
apparatus includes a condensed matter host lattice having surface features of
a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns on at least a portion of its
surfaces, and apparatus of dissolving the guest species in the host lattice
in a ratio of at least 0.5, the guest species undergoing the oscillations
upon dissolution in the host lattice.

     In preferred embodiments, the guest species is provided in an
electrolytic solution of the guest species; the electrolytic solution is
preferably a solution of heavy or light water and K.sub.2 CO.sub.3.

     In another aspect the invention provides a host lattice for causing a
guest species dissolved in the host lattice to undergo dynamic anharmonic
oscillations according to the methods of the invention. Preferably, the host
lattice comprises a coiled tube formed of a sheet of palladium silver alloy.
In other preferred embodiments, the host lattice comprises a superlattice of
first and second submaterials alternately layered in layers of between 10 and
100 nanometers in thickness. Preferably, the host lattice submaterials are
nickel and copper, or nickel and palladium, or copper and palladium. In other
preferred embodiments, the host lattice structure has been cold worked, and
comprises a nanograined polycrystalline morphology.

     Other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the
description of a preferred embodiment, and from the claims.

DRWD  Drawing Description

                     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

     FIG. 1 is a rendering of a conventional X-ray photo-spectroscopy plot of
X-ray intensity as a function of molecular orbital energy for a hypothetical
condensed matter sample;

     FIG. 2A is a plot of the Jahn-Teller coupling parameter .beta. as a
function of the percent bond overlap of electron molecular orbitals of second
nearest neighbor hydrogen atoms near the Fermi energy;

     FIG. 2B is a plot of nuclear displacement oscillation amplitude as a
function of the Jahn-Teller coupling parameter .beta.;

     FIGS. 3A-3D illustrate the steps of producing a palladium-nickel clad
wire according to one aspect of the invention;

     FIGS. 4A-4F illustrate the steps of a first method for lithographically
defining nanoscopic surface features according to another aspect of the
invention;

     FIGS. 5A-5F illustrate the steps of a second method for lithographically
defining nanoscopic surface features according to another aspect of the
invention;

     FIG. 6 schematically illustrates a cell activation and measurement
set-up according to one aspect of the invention;

     FIG. 7 schematically illustrates the activation cell of FIG. 6 in more
detail; and

     FIG. 8 schematically illustrates the anode of FIG. 7 in more detail.

DETD  Detail Description

                   DESCRIPTION OF A PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

     We first present a discussion of anharmonicity in condensed matter.
Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a conventional X-ray photo-spectroscopy
plot of X-ray intensity (horizontal axis) as a function of molecular orbital
energy (vertical axis) for a hypothetical condensed matter sample. The
vertical axis also depicts specific molecular orbital energy levels for the
sample. Beginning with the orbital of lowest energy, some number of molecular
orbitals of the sample are fully occupied, up to an energy level above which
the molecular orbitals are unoccupied. The fully occupied orbitals are each
associated with a specific symmetry and steric state. The Fermi energy,
E.sub.f, is defined as that energy level halfway between the energy level of
the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and that of the lowest
unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). The energy gap, .DELTA.E, is defined as
the energy difference between the energy levels of the HOMO and LUMO.

     As the temperature of a sample is increased or radiation is applied to
the sample, the population of the HOMO shifts toward the LUMO, and the mean
energy of the molecular orbitals shifts a corresponding amount. Under certain
arrangements of matter, the HOMO and LUMO can actually co-exist at the same
energy level. This condition is referred to as orbital degeneracy. Under
degenerate molecular orbital conditions, condensed matter systems generally
find it energetically favorable to lower the free energy of the system by
dynamically distorting, or in extreme cases, statically distorting to a state
of symmetry lower than its existing symmetry state. An example of such a
distortion is a cubic material undergoing a trigonal lattice distortion.

     This static distortion is one embodiment of the well-known Jahn-Teller
effect, relating to condensed matter distortion. According to the Jahn-Teller
effect, when electron molecular orbital degeneracy conditions are achieved,
both static distortions and dynamic distortions are possible and both result
in an energetically more favorable state. Of great importance is the fact
that under dynamically degenerate conditions the electrons in the degenerate
molecular orbitals can tunnel back and forth in space between degenerate
orbitals, centered on separate atoms, at very high rates, where the tunneling
rate is denoted as .omega..sub.c. The amplitudes of these tunneling
oscillations are under certain conditions so large that the positive nuclei
of the parent atoms to the tunneling electrons respond to the oscillations in
some fashion, i.e., the electron oscillations may couple to the parent nuclei
lattice. In this case, the amplitude of the oscillations of the parent
nuclei, in response to the electron tunneling oscillations, is termed
.delta..

     Referring to FIG. 2A, the Jahn-Teller coupling parameter, .beta.,
characterizes the degree of degeneracy of a particular molecular orbital
energy configuration, and correlates that degree to a measure of the
electronic molecular orbital overlap of the configuration. The coupling
parameter .beta. has a range between 0 and 1/2. For a condensed matter
lattice characterized by .beta.=1/2, the lattice is not experiencing
Jahn-Teller tunneling oscillations, but rather, oscillations are
characterized as thermal parabolic oscillations expected of harmonic
oscillation behavior. As the local bonding arrangements of the condensed
lattice are shifted towards degeneracy, the .beta. parameter decreases below
1/2, and the overlap of molecular orbitals increases. The tunneling
oscillations of electrons in the degenerate molecular orbitals become less
and less harmonic in character. This type of tunneling oscillation is
referred to as anharmonic oscillation because the oscillations are derived
from statistical fluctuations in molecular orbital occupancy and are nearly
insensitive to temperature, unlike harmonic oscillations, which are thermal
in nature. In general, systems characterized by a .beta. parameter less than
about 1/4 become so structurally unstable during dynamic tunneling
oscillations that they statically distort to a lower symmetry and settle into
a new harmonic condition, like the cubic to trigonal distortion mentioned
above.

     A method for predicting the molecular orbital overlap resulting from a
given orbital degeneracy is given in "Hydrogen-hydrogen/deuterium-deuterium
bonding in palladium and the superconducting/electrochemical properties of
PdH.sub.x PdD.sub.x," by Dr.  Keith Johnson, et al, Modern Physics Letters B,
Vol. 3, no. 10, pp.  795-803, July 1989, and is herein incorporated by
reference. Based on this orbital overlap prediction technique, which provides
a method for quantizing the Jahn-Teller coupling parameter, .beta., the
orbital degeneracy of a condensed lattice system may be selectively "tuned",
or specified, to provide a desired degree of molecular orbital overlap. By
tuning the degeneracy of the system to, e.g., increase the system degeneracy,
the .beta. coupling parameter characterizing the material is in turn (or
inherently) decreased.

     Referring again to FIG. 1, as the degeneracy of a condensed matter
system is tuned so that the HOMO and LUMO come closer together, the energy
gap,
.DELTA.E, between the HOMO and LUMO approaches zero. The magnitude of this
energy gap is directly related to the rate of molecular orbital electron
tunneling, T.sub.R, by:

EQU  T.sub.R =Ae.sup.-.DELTA.E/KT                               (1)

where:

 K is the Boltzmann constant

 T is degrees Kelvin.

From this relationship (1) it is clear that as the energy gap between the
HOMO and LUMO approaches zero, the electron tunneling rate T.sub.R
correspondingly increases.

     At high tunneling rates, the tunneling electrons impart their
oscillatory motion to the corresponding parent nuclei; the nuclei are
effectively "dragged" through the anharmonic oscillatory motion of the
tunneling electrons. Thus, the corresponding rate of anharmonic nuclei
oscillation, is also, as expected, related to the degree of molecular orbital
overlap, via the coupling parameter .beta.. The frequency of nuclei
oscillations,
.omega..sub.c, in terms of the coupling parameter, is given as:

EQU  .omega..sub.c =h(m.sub.e /M.sub.i).sup..beta. /2m.sub.e d.sup.2 (2)

where:

 m.sub.e =mass of electron

 M.sub.i =mass of parent nuclei

 .beta.=Jahn-Teller coupling parameter (quantified based on the orbital
overlap-degeneracy prediction model)

 d=separation between second nearest neighbor nuclei (the correlation
distance between molecular orbitals of opposite phase, .PSI..sup.+  and
.PSI..sup.-  (not the lattice parameter))

 h=Plank's constant.

     Referring to FIG. 2B, the amplitude of parent nuclei oscillation,
.delta., resulting from the degree of anharmonicity caused by orbital
overlap, as given by the coupling parameter .beta., mathematically ranges
between 0-1.7 .ANG., for .beta. ranging between 0-0.5, although, as explained
above, .beta. values dose to zero are physically meaningless. The details of
bonding overlap, however, restrict the value of .beta. to above 0.1.  Thus,
referring also to FIG. 2A, a measure of the coupling parameter
.beta. provides a means for correlating a degree of molecular orbital
overlap, or degeneracy, to the amplitude of nuclear displacement resulting
from anharmonic oscillations of electrons in the degenerate molecular
orbitals. The relationship nuclear displacement amplitude, .delta., to the
Jahn-Teller coupling parameter, .beta., is quantified as:

EQU  .delta.=(m.sub.e /M.sub.i).sup..beta. d.                   (3)

Based on this relationship, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, it is seen that as
.beta. decreases from 0.5 toward 0.1 (becoming more degenerate) the parent
nuclei (e.g., deuteron) displacement amplitude .delta. increases to over 10
times the amplitude associated with thermal (harmonic) oscillations. In fact,
the parent nuclei displacement amplitude may realistically approach or exceed
0.6 .ANG..

     The average distance of closest approach of adjacent parent nuclei which
are anharmonically oscillating is determined based on the displacement
amplitude .delta., described above, and the interstitial site distance
between two such oscillating nuclei. With this interstitial distance between
the nuclei, or bond separation parameter, given as d, the average distance of
closest approach for adjacent anharmonically oscillating nuclei is given as
d-2.delta.. This distance may be equivalently considered as the average
distance of penetration into the coulomb barrier achieved by adjacent
oscillating nuclei.

     The inventors herein have recognized that the probability for
interaction of neighboring nuclei may be dramatically increased via
enhancement of the anharmonic nuclei oscillation phenomenon discussed above,
and further that this anharmonic oscillation may be "tuned" by specifying a
particular molecular orbital degeneracy (and corresponding electron orbital
tunneling) via a corresponding degree of molecular orbital overlap. Both the
anharmonic oscillation nuclei displacement amplitude, .delta., and the
frequency of anharmonic oscillation, .omega..sub.c, were shown above to be
strongly dependent on .beta., the Jahn-Teller coupling parameter, which
provides a measure of the molecular orbital overlap, or degeneracy, for a
given system. The probability for two nuclei to interact will be shown below
to be strongly dependent on the distance of closest approach between any two
nuclei, given above as d-2.delta., and the frequency at which this closest
approach occurs. The coupling parameter .beta. thus provides a mechanism for
correlating a given state of molecular orbital degeneracy with a probability
of nuclei interaction. To achieve a maximum probability for interstitial
nuclei interaction, then, a molecular orbital degeneracy state is selected
which, for a given condensed matter system, minimizes the distance of closest
approach of nuclei during oscillations while at the same time maximizing the
frequency of those oscillations.

     For a condensed matter system containing hydrogen, deuterium, tritium,
or other interstitial species dissolved in a host lattice, the inventors
herein have recognized that by "tuning" the molecular orbital degeneracy of
the host lattice, the anharmonicity of the dissolved hydrogen or deuterium
nuclei sublattice residing in the host lattice may be enhanced to achieve the
conditions described above, i.e., a large displacement amplitude, .delta., of
the hydrogen or deuterium nuclei and a correspondingly small distance of
closest approach, and a high oscillation frequency of deuterium or hydrogen
nuclei. It must be emphasized that it is the electron molecular orbital
topology of the host lattice that creates an energy state giving rise to
degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of,
e.g., H--H guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest
sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital
topology.

     The invention herein provides methods for enhancing this sublattice
anharmonicity via "tuning" of the host lattice molecular orbital degeneracy.
These methods, described below, all provide common results: they act to
promote second nearest neighbor bonding between sublattice nuclei; and they
thereby promote maximization of the anharmonic oscillation amplitude and
oscillation frequency of the sublattice nuclei.

     A variety of metal alloys have been investigated to determine that
alloy, which by the nature of its molecular orbital degeneracy, maximizes
anharmonic oscillations of deuterium or hydrogen dissolved in the alloy
lattice. The molecular orbital overlap, corresponding coupling parameter
.beta., and anharmonicity of deuterated palladium alloyed with lead,
bismuth, titanium, silver, copper, zirconium, germanium, silicon, aluminum,
thallium, and gold has been investigated, as well as deuterated nickel
alloyed with titanium. "Deuterated" is here defined to include any of the
three hydrogen isotopes deuterium, tritium, and protons. All of the
investigated alloys possess tetrahedral and octahedral interstitial sites,
yet not all of the alloys serve to enhance the molecular orbital degeneracy
of interstitial guest species. Based on an analysis of the degree of
molecular orbital degeneracy of each of the palladium alloys, palladium
silver is the preferred alloy, as it maximizes hydrogen isotope
anharmonicity.

     In pure palladium and palladium alloys, the lattice parameter, a, of the
palladium atoms in the lattice .apprxeq.3.6 .ANG.. The space in the palladium
lattice may be populated by a guest species, e.g., introduction of deuterium
nuclei dissolved in the lattice to occupy octahedral and tetrahedral
interstitial locations of the lattice, via electrolytic charging. After this
charging, the deuterium nuclei constitute second nearest neighbors (with each
other) in a degenerate orbital condition.  Deuterium is the preferred guest
nuclei species, but hydrogen is also an acceptable guest species.

     While the separation between second nearest neighbor deuterium nuclei
located at octahedral interstitial sites within the host lattice is 3.6
.ANG., the same length as the palladium lattice parameter, once
electrolytic charging of deuterium reaches a high level, the deuterium nuclei
begin to populate the smaller tetrahedral interstitial sites of palladium and
its alloys, and the distance between a neighboring interstitial tetrahedral
and octahedral site is 1.7 .ANG., less than one-half the lattice parameter
distance. Thus, deuterium nuclei populating adjacent octahedral and
tetrahedral sites are closer together, and have a higher spatial density,
than nuclei populating only octahedral sites.

     This small equilibrium distance between tetrahedral and octahedral sited
deuterium nuclei, in combination with enhanced anharmonic oscillations of
those nuclei, create the conditions necessary for enhanced interaction
between the deuterium nuclei.

     Of the metal alloys investigated, it is found that palladium silver
provides the highest degree of guest deuterium nuclei anharmonicity. This
silver compound increases the d.DELTA.-s.sigma., antibonding component of the
palladium-deuterium molecular orbitals, at concentrations up to about 23%
silver, thereby promoting more overlap of the second nearest neighbor
D--D(s.sigma.) bonding molecular orbitals and providing an enhanced molecular
orbital degeneracy. A particular deuterated palladium silver compound,
Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 D, is preferred for a bulk alloy embodiment, but other
palladium silver compounds, as well as other metal compounds such as Au--Ni,
Cu--Pd, Cu--Ni, Ni--Pd, Cu--Ni, Ni--Ti, Zr--P, Pd--P, Ni--Zr, Zr--Pd, and
Zr--Ti also provide a degree of anharmonicity sufficient to enhance
interaction of deuterium nuclei in the alloy lattice. Thus, while the
following discussion focuses on palladium silver, it must be recognized that
other alloy compounds are also suitable.

     Using the molecular orbital overlap modeling technique of Johnson
described above, the computed bond overlap of Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 D (near
the Fermi level) is calculated to be 35%. Using the graphical relationships
in FIGS. 2A and 2B, this bond overlap correlates to a Jahn-Teller coupling
parameter .beta. of 0.13, and a deuterium nuclei anharmonic oscillation
amplitude, .delta., equal to 0.6. Then, using the relationship (d-2.delta.),
given above, for determining the average distance of closest approach for
anharmonically oscillating deuterons in the palladium ahoy lattice, with the
bond separation parameter, d, being 1.7 .ANG. between an octahedral and
tetrahedral deuterium nuclei, the average distance of closest approach of a
D--D nuclei pair is 0.5 .ANG.. This distance is closer than even the bond
distance in deuterium gas, which is 0.7 .ANG..  The average distance of
closest approach must be reduced below 0.5 .ANG.  to observe any strong force
interactions at a rate above the expected background rate. Thus, the
probability, or expectation value, of finding an anharmonically oscillating
deuteron pair inside the strong force envelope is dramatically enhanced by
small reductions in this distance of closest approach to reduce this distance
below 0.5 .ANG..

     Specific details of the energy potential between the deuterium atoms in
this anharmonic system are unknown. However, a semi-qualitative analysis may
be performed using an expression derived by Sichlen and Jones for the rate,
R, of D--D nuclei interaction, using a Morse potential, as follows:

EQU  R=Ae.sup.(-.lambda.(r.sub.d))                              (4)

where

 A=the nuclei interaction attempt rate

 .lambda.(r.sub.d)=the reaction distance

 (r.sub.d)=the Coulomb barrier penetration factor.

Factoring out the barrier width, such that
.lambda.(r.sub.d)=[(d-2.delta.)-.lambda.'(r.sub.d)] and using
(d-2.delta.)=1.05 and .lambda.(r.sub.d)=180 for a D.sub.2 molecule, and
setting A equal to the anharmonic oscillation frequency, .omega..sub.c the
interaction rate of deuterium nuclei in a deuterium molecule is 10.sup.-70
interactions/D--D pair/sec, at room temperature.

     Using the substitutions given above for the palladium system at room
temperature, the equation is correlated to a PdD system given by:

EQU  R=.omega..sub.c e.sup.-(d-2.delta.)171.                    (5)

     Substituting the values of (d-2.delta.) as 1.05 .ANG. for the system of
PdD, a deuterium nuclei interaction rate of 10.sup.-50 is indicated. In
contrast, substituting 5.times.10.sup.11 rad/sec and 0.5 .ANG. for the values
of .omega..sub.c and (d-2.delta.), respectively, computed for the system of
Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 D, indicates a deuterium nuclei interaction rate of
7.times.10.sup.-27 interactions/D--D pair/sec under the enhanced anharmonic
conditions set up by the Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 host lattice. Based on this
analysis, it is clear that deuterium nuclei interaction is significantly
promoted by anharmonic oscillation conditions.

     The nature of the strong force nuclei interaction having a rate
quantified by the above equation is not here specified; rather, the chemical
and physical conditions that amplify the probability for the occurrence of
this strong force interaction are provided by the enhanced anharmonicity
system of the invention.

     Optimally, the strong force interaction of deuterium nuclei which are
anharmonically oscillating occurs in the host lattice with a high degree of
coherency. The more non-linear, or anharmonic, the deuterium sub-lattice
behaves, the higher the coherency of the anharmonic oscillations. Condensed
matter systems in which the deuteron nuclei motions are synchronized to such
a high degree are expected to generally tend toward conditions that favor 3-
and 4-body strong force interactions.  Such many-bodied, cooperative
oscillations permit 3 nuclei to be confined in, or close to, the strong force
envelope simultaneously, providing a corresponding increase in interaction
potential. Prediction of reaction by-products of 3- and 4-body strong force
interactions are beyond current understanding. High energy scattering
experiments are of no predictive use, owing to the immeasurably low
probability of even a 3-body interaction.

     It must also be recognized that the anharmonic tunneling oscillations
described herein occur in a space regime such that the inertial wavelength of
the deuterons is much greater than that typically associated with high-energy
events. Thus, substantial overlap of the wave-functions of nearby nuclei,
even those outside of the interaction envelope of a nuclei pair, can be
expected. Additionally, interference effects of the low-energy tunneling
oscillations can not be dismissed. Indeed, the energy of the deuterated
palladium silver system is computed to be seven orders of magnitude lower
than the lowest energy scattering experiments (.apprxeq.20,000 eV compared
with 20 meV). Conversely, the deBroglie wavelength of a wave/particle
deuteron is increased by .sqroot.107 over that of scatter high energy
experiments. Thus, interference effects of the tunneling phenomena can not be
discounted.

     Anharmonic oscillations resulting from specific molecular orbital
degeneracy may be understood from another viewpoint. The amplitude,
.delta., of the anharmonic oscillations may be equated with the energy of
the oscillating system. The energy of the oscillator thereby correlates a
wavelength with the oscillating particle. When the wavelength, .lambda., of
an anharmonically oscillating deuteron coincides with the length of a
potential well, here the Coulomb barrier, a resonance is expected. Tuning of
the anharmonicity of a condensed matter system thus acts to adjust the
wavelength of the wave/particle entity (here, the deuteron) to induce
particular resonances. The induced resonance further enhances the oscillation
amplitude, .delta., and can dramatically increase the probability of a strong
force interaction between neighboring nuclei.

     The inventors herein have recognized that in addition to precisely
selecting an alloy host lattice for enhancing anharmonicity of guest
deuterium nuclei, the application of an electric field may be employed to
shift the HOMO and LUMO populations and energy spectra of a given host
lattice to achieve molecular orbital degeneracy and enhanced anharmonicity.
It is recognized, however, that E-fields are confined to the near-surface
region of conducting materials. Therefore, E-fields only control the system
anharmonicity in a region of the system whose depth is less than about 200
.ANG.-deep into the bulk of a host material.  Additionally, the inventors
herein have recognized a third mechanism for tuning the degeneracy and
anharmonicity of a system, namely, using nanometric surface preparation (NSP)
techniques on the host lattice. Such preparation is intended to impart
nanoscale surface topology to the host lattice; this topology acts to create
a low coordination of the surface atoms. Surfaces with a low coordination of
atoms develop anharmonic properties owing to orbital de-localization at
regions of high curvature, where the radius of curvature of such regions is
generally less than 0.2
.mu.m. Nanometric surface preparation, like the application of E-fields,
is confined to effect only the surface and near surface regions of a host
lattice. Each of these anharmonicity tuning mechanisms will be described in
tun below.

     Electric fields, which are limited to the near surface of a metal, make
substantial changes to the local force constants and accompanying vibrational
response of near-surface atoms of a metal. Anharmonic oscillations driven by
molecular orbital degeneracy are modified by the applications of electric
fields, mediated by the local adjustments to the force constants. However,
these effects are distributed over the interaction distance of the anharmonic
potentials, which may extend normal to the surface over many lattice
parameters.

     As described below it is intended that a "tuned" degenerate host lattice
be charged, via electrolysis, to populate interstitial sites with deuterium.
The strong electric fields developed during such electrolysis is recognized
to provide two effects, based on an understanding of the system: a strong
E-field insures that a high concentration of deuterium (or other guest
species) is obtained and maintained within the lattice; and a strong E-field
provides a driving force to further delocalize the D(1s) orbitals of the host
lattice nuclei, beyond that resulting from a particular selection of host
alloy. Fields on the order of 10.sup.4 - -10.sup.7 Volts/cm occur within and
at the surface of conducting materials undergoing electrolysis, extending
normal to the surface on the order of nanometers, The exact quantification of
the effect of an E-field on the surface can not be made at this time.
However, Hellman-Feynman theory suggests that the E-fields act on the
population of electron molecular orbitals, which action can be systematically
employed to shift the Fermi energy in a direction leading to further
degeneracy, for the proper E-field polarity. Of course, the E-field may
detract from a particular orbital population as well, depending on the
E-field polarity; hence it is appropriate to consider the application of an
E-field as degeneracy tuning.

     Consider Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 D, discussed above as providing a high
degree of enhanced deuterium anharmonicity and a rate of deuterium nuclei
interaction of 7.times.10.sup.-27 interactions/D--D pair/sec. The application
of an electric field to this system during, e.g., electrolysis, further
delocalizes the already degenerate molecular orbitals by an additional 5-10%,
resulting in an increase of the anharmonic oscillation amplitude, .delta., of
the deuterium nuclei by an additional 0.1 .ANG. beyond the 0.6 .ANG.
oscillation amplitude caused by the anharmonic conditions of the Pd.sub..77
Ag.sub..23 D alloy lattice alone. In this case, the barrier penetration
parameter, or average distance of closest approach, of two deuterium nuclei,
is then 0.5 .ANG., and the rate of deuterium nuclei strong force interactions
increases from 7.times.10.sup.-27 interactions/D--D pair/sec to
4.6.times.10.sup.-10 interactions/D--D pair/sec. Thus, the application of an
E-field, e.g., during electrolysis, increases the interaction rate by
seventeen orders of magnitude. As explained previously, the nature of these
interactions is not here specified; rather, chemical and physical conditions
that promote the occurrence of these interactions are provided by the
enhanced anharmonicity system of the invention.

     For the majority of materials having properties which lend them as a
host lattice, and particularly for nickel and nickel alloys, the
anharmonicity tuning mechanisms of E-field applications and nanometric
surface preparation do not present a hinderance to system performance,
because ideal heat transfer favors a surface phenomenon, and these mechanisms
promote anharmonicity at the surface, rather than the bulk of the material.

     The third anharmonicity tuning mechanism of the invention, nanometric
surface preparation (NSP), acts to adjust the local coordination of surface
atoms, as explained above. High curvature surfaces, such as prismatic edges
and asperities, are optimal low atomic coordination surfaces, and may be
fabricated with existing technology to create a high density of such features
with nanometric curvature radii of less than 0.2
.mu.m. The new atomic coordinations produced by the resulting surface
topology induce variations in electron molecular orbitals expected of atoms
of a smooth surface; these electron molecular orbitals have different size,
shape, orientation and, perhaps most importantly, population than those
associated with a smooth surface. The new molecular orbital occupancy levels
associated with this lower atomic coordination tend to shift the Fermi level
such that the degeneracy of the system is increased, and the anharmonicity of
the system is correspondingly increased. Additionally, NSP surfaces enhance
the dissolution of hydrogen isotopes in a host lattice during electrolysis,
thereby promoting population of tetrahedral sites in the host lattice.

     Considered in another way, partitioning of a highly nonlinear, i.e.,
anharmonic, solid such as the Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23 D alloy so that the alloy
is nanometrically discretized, using, for example, NSP methods of the
invention, leads to enormous vibrational instabilities in the solid, and
correspondingly large vibration spectra. That is, atomic scale discreteness
effects give rise to localized vibrational states that would not exist in a
continuum, nondiscretized system. It is these localized vibrational states
that provide the large amplitude anharmonicity recognized by the inventors
herein as the foundation for enhancing nuclear interaction between nearest
neighbor guest species in a host lattice. The existence and quantification of
the correlation between nanometric partitioning and vibrational instabilities
is provided by, for example, Dauzois and Peyard, "Energy Localization in
Nonlinear Lattices," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 70, No. 25, Jun. 21, 1993,
pp. 3935-3938; and Kivshar and Peyard, "Modulational instabilities in
discrete lattices," Physics Review A, Vol. 46, No. 6, Sep. 15, 1992, p. 3198.

     Several host lattice surface preparation techniques are preferred to
produce this effect, but those skilled in the art will recognize that other
techniques are equally applicable to achieve the desired increase in
anharmonicity. These techniques can be classified into two categories: first,
post-processing techniques, such as wire drawing, nanoscribing, lithography,
and back-etching, and secondly, materials synthesis techniques, such as CVD,
MBE, ED,or PVD over articulated surfaces, surface coatings, and selective
binary compound etching, all of which are described below.

     In a first technique for providing nanoscopic topology to the surface of
a host lattice material, the host lattice material, in the form of wire, is
drawn through a diamond die which has been processed to include relief
topology. Such a topology is achieved on a diamond die by positioning a
high-power laser, for example, a CO.sub.2 or YAG laser, focussed to a spot
size of less than 30 .mu.m, at sufficient power to ablate diamond, to locally
evaporate carbon on the inside radial surface of the die. The laser is
focused to a desired diameter spot size, which is preferably not more than 30
.mu.m, and either raster scanned or modulated in a pulsed fashion along the
inner wall of the diamond die.

     This rastering or pulsing action results in the effective "drilling" of
bevelled holes in the diamond die. Pulsed laser sources, as opposed to
continuous wave sources, provide the most flexibility for "customizing" the
imparted relief topology. By selectively programming the rastering and dwell
time of the laser as it is applied to the inner wall of a diamond die, the
inner wall surface of the die may be sculptured in a predefined way to
provide bevelled features. The resulting features may be smoothed with a
laser annealing step or subsequent diamond paste polishing step to remove
rough spots on the interior of the holes. Preferably, in this application,
the diamond die is processed to intentionally impart nanometric and
microscopic features into the trailing edge, i.e., smallest diameter, of the
die.

     In an alternative technique, a diamond abrasive, in the form of a paste,
may be applied to a diamond die to provide topology on the inner surface of
the die by scoring that surface as the paste is passed through the die.

     Once a diamond die is processed to include on its inner surface
nanometric-sized bevelled features or scored asperities, host lattice wire,
e.g., nickel or palladium wire, is drawn through the die. After being drawn
through the die, the wire will take on the relief structure of the die;
handling care is called for to avoid post-process rounding of the
nanometrically sharp features on the drawn wire. Indeed, conventional wire
drawing technology is designed to minimize topological features on drawn
wire, and thus, typically includes a surface polishing step. Such a polishing
step is disadvantageous for this process.

     Specific preferable steps of the wire drawing process are as follows.
Prior to being drawn through a prepared diamond die, the wire to be processed
is cleaned via a series of solvent washes, for example: wash (1)--15 minute
immersion in 40.degree. C. trichloroethane with ultrasonic agitation; wash
(2)--15 minute immersion in fresh 40.degree. C. trichloroethane with
ultrasonic agitation; wash (3)--15 minute immersion in room-temperature
acetone with ultrasonic agitation; wash (4)--15 minute immersion in
room-temperature methanol with ultrasonic agitation; wash (5)--15 minute
immersion in room-temperature isopropanol with ultrasonic agitation; and
final wash (6)--30 minute rinse in distilled water. After this cleaning
process, the wire is drawn through the die while being lubricated. A suitable
lubricant is selected based on the need to avoid organic contamination of the
alloy surface.

     In an alternate embodiment, multi-clad wire of nickel and palladium may
be fabricated to provide enhanced anharmonicity due to both a specific alloy
combination and surface topology. Referring to FIG. 3A, such multi-clad wire
is fabricated using a solid, cylindrical copper rod 10, a solid, cylindrical
nickel rod 12 of a diameter less than the diameter of the copper rod, and a
palladium sheet 14 having a length equal to that of the copper and nickel
rods. The length and diameters of the rods are determined based on the
desired final length and diameter of the multi-clad wire to be produced. In a
first fabrication step, shown in FIG.  3B, the copper rod 10 is machined to
remove copper from the interior of the rod, thereby creating a copper tube.
The inner diameter 16 of the copper tube is preferably machined to match the
diameter of a cylindrical assembly 18 comprising the nickel rod 12 around
which is wrapped the palladium sheet 14. In a next step, shown in FIG. 3C,
the nickel rod-palladium sheet assembly 18 is pressed into the copper tube 10
to form a billet. As shown in FIG. 3D, a copper cap 20 having a centrally
located hole is then welded to one end of the billet and a pumping lead. 22
is attached to the cap hole.

     The pumping lead 22 is connected to a vacuum system and the billet is
evacuated via the system for approximately 12 hours at a temperature of
300.degree. C. At the end of the evacuation period, the pumping lead 22 is
weld-sealed to isolate the billet from atmosphere, and the assembly is cooled
to room temperature. Once the billet is cooled, it is extruded, using
conventional extruding techniques, to have an outside diameter of not more
than 2 inches. Then, using a group of successively smaller dies, the extruded
billet (now a wire) is drawn through the dies from largest die to smallest,
in sequence, to reach a final desired diameter. After the final die drawing,
the copper cladding tube is etched off of the palladium sheet to expose the
palladium-nickel assembly. A solution of Hf/HNO.sub.3 at room temperature,
using standard etching and rinsing techniques, adequately removes the copper
and cleans the palladium surface. The resulting multi-clad wire may be used
as is or alternatively, the wire may be drawn through a diamond die having
surface features on its inner walls, using the process described above, to
form the desired surface asperities on the wire.

     In an alternative embodiment, an arbitrarily-shaped host lattice
material piece may be mechanically processed to create a planar surface
having nanometric topology using a lapping process as follows. If the piece
is rather small, it is first mounted on a quartz optical fiat using a
low-melting point temperature wax. The optical fiat is first positioned on a
hot plate at approximately 90.degree. C. The temperature of the optical fiat
is then increased until a small portion of wax melts on the fiat, at which
point the rectangular piece is positioned on the melted wax. The optical
fiat, now supporting the rectangular sample, is then removed from the hot
plate and cooled to room temperature.

     The host lattice sample alone, or a supported smaller sample is
positioned on a nylon lapping pad of a standard lapping plate on a polishing
wheel. A polishing slurry consisting of standard soluble 5 .mu.m diamond oil
paste and mineral kerosine is loaded on the wheel to lubricate the sample
during the lapping process. With the lubricated sample in place, the wheel is
run for about 30 minutes, throughout which time the lubrication is
maintained.

     At the end of the 30 minute-lapping period, the nylon lapping pad is
replaced with a new pad and the sample is positioned on the pad and
lubricated with standard 2 .mu.m diamond oil paste and mineral kerosine.  The
wheel is then run again for 30 minutes. In a third lapping process, the nylon
pad is again replaced and the sample is run on the wheel for 45 minutes using
0.5 .mu.m diamond oil paste and mineral kerosine as the lapping lubricant.
Finally, in a fourth lapping process, the nylon pad is again replaced and the
sample is run on the wheel for 2 hours using 0.1
.mu.m diamond oil paste and mineral kerosine as the lapping lubricant.
This last lapping process using diamond paste imparts the desired nanometric
features on the planarized surface.

     If the arbitrarily-shaped host lattice sample was of such a small size
that it was mounted on an optical fiat, the sample is removed from the flat,
after the last lapping process, by melting the wax on the fiat using a hot
plate and removing the sample from the melted wax. Whether or not an optical
fiat support was employed, the sample is preferably cleaned at the end of the
lapping procedure, following the multistage solvent cleaning process
described above in connection with the wire drawing procedure, or other
suitable cleaning procedure.

     Alternative mechanical processing techniques may be employed to produce
nanometric surface topology for enhancing condensed anharmonicity according
to the teachings of the invention herein. For example, in one method
according to the invention, a diamond stylus is used to mechanically scribe
the surface of a host lattice material in a predetermined scribe pattern. The
diamond stylus is preferably "ultrasharp" in that the effective working tip
diameter of the stylus is of nanometric proportions, and can thereby produce
nanometric-sized scribe patterns. The stylus is precisely moved across the
surface of the material using a computer-controlled actuating mechanism. Such
a system and methods for using the system to produce nanometric scribe
patterns are disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 929,341, entitled
"Method and apparatus for forming nanometric features on surfaces," filed on
Sep. 13, 1992, by Harry Clark et al., and herein incorporated by reference.
An extension of this diamond stylus patterning technique employs a stylus
fixture having an array of such diamond tips which each are characterized by
nanometic-sized tip radii. The array of tips provides the ability to in
tandem scribe many patterns across the surface.

     Using such a system, scratched relief topology is imparted to the
surface of, e.g., a sheet of host lattice material. It is not required that
the original surface topology of the sheet be planar, but rather, the
topology may even be slowly undulating. Active sensors, for example, or other
means of the computer-controlled actuating mechanism permit an array of styli
to ride lightly on the surface, no matter its topology, and additionally,
restrict the depth of cut to, e.g., less than 2 .mu.m. In this way, a large
surface area can be processed in an acceptable time period. As described
below, such a nanometrically processed sheet may be used in its initial form
as a sheet or may be wound into a small spatial volume, to form a coiled
tube, much in the manner of an electrolytic capacitor design.

     According to a preferred embodiment of the invention herein, nanometric
surface features are produced using the diamond stylus scribing scheme
described above, in combination with a "post-scribe" ultrasonic anodic etch
process. The application of an E-field during the etching serves to populate
antibonding orbitals in the near surface of the host lattice, thereby
facilitating decohesion of, typically, metallic bonds. Such an anodic etch is
carried out using, e.g., a solution of hydrochloric acid diluted with three
parts water. A platinum electrode may be employed, for example. The anodic
cell is operated under :reverse bias at several milliamps/cm.sup.2 for a
selected time period, such as 300 seconds, sufficient to produce a high
density of nanoscale features on the surface of the host lattice material.
Ultrasonic agitation of the anodic etch bath promotes feature formation. The
two-step scribe-anodic etch process produces a high density of nanoscale
features on any size host lattice sheet.

     There are still other materials processing techniques that result in
surfaces with sub-microscopic features. For example, diamond turning, fly
cutting, and milling techniques are suitable for creating surface structures.
Alternatively, various metallurgical techniques may be employed; suitable
metallurgical methods include the process of co-solidification of a binary
mixture with low solubility in the solid phase. The resulting solidified
matrix will have dendritic (needle-like) filaments in the midst of the second
phase element. Selective etching of the second phase element results in a
porous, spongy material with high curvature surfaces. Ni--Al and Pd--B are
two examples of relatively insoluble metal systems that are preferred for
this technique. Vapor deposition techniques that are customized to favor
discontinuous, rather than smooth and continuous deposition characteristics
result in sub-micron sized nucleation sites that enhance the anharmonicity of
the underlying substrate surface. Conversely, vapor deposition of a smooth
coating over a highly textured surface achieves this same result of
sub-micron sized asperities. An example of this process is the autoclaving of
open-cell polystyrene. The decomposition resulting from the autoclaving
produces a carbonaceous skeleton with very small feature sizes.

     Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is a molecular level process whereby two
molecules react only when conjoined on a hot surface. This thermally
activated process is thus useful in producing a selected surface topology,
because the two or more molecular species employed in the process do not
react in the gas phase. Deposition onto a heated substrate can be precisely
controlled with adjustments to the temperature of the substrate, as well as
the relative composition of the gas phase constituents.

     For this application, deposition quality and thickness are best obtained
at low pressures, an operating regime providing the ability to produce very
thin layers. This is especially true for an articulated surface, such as a
pyrolized organic foam. Coating the interior regions of such a surface is
referred to as chemical vapor infiltration (CVI). Clearly, ultrathin coatings
are preferred for this application, lest the small pores of the foam plug up
and obstruct the nanometric surface reactivity.

     Whatever mechanical technique is chosen for imparting sub-micron sized
surface features to a material surface, that technique should optimally
provide a high density of surface asperities, which preferably include
points, prisms, and corners, or comprise any geometries having features with
a radius of curvature less than 0.5 .mu.m, but preferably less than 0.2
.mu.m. Such features provide a location 29 of small radius curvature.
Geometries having a radius of curvature more than 0.2 .mu.m will enhance
anharmonicity to some extent, but to a lesser degree than smaller curvature
surface features.

     While nanometric surface features, as described above, have been shown
to be effective in enhancing anharmonicity, techniques of the invention
herein for discetization of metallic grain size at nanometric dimensions also
provides the ability to promote enhanced anharmonicity. Based on prior work
by Peyrad, et al., "Energy Localization in Nonlinear Lattices," Physical
Review Letters, Vol. 70, no. 25, p. 3935, 1993, it is known that energy
localization occurs in one-dimensional nonlinear lattices. The inventors
herein have recognized that in three dimensions, discrete nanodots or
nanocrystals of anharmonic metals can develop large amplitude oscillations
resulting from quantum size effects. Rather than damping large oscillations,
nonlinear nanodot structures favor the growth of large amplitude, low
frequency anharmonic lattice oscillations. Such intrinsically localized
vibrational states augment the anharmonicity enhancement provided by the
schemes described above and provide a mechanism for sustaining resonant
dynamic Jahn-Teller oscillations.

     Such resonant oscillations are only to be expected to be observable in
materials that have in some way been partitioned or discretized. In contrast
to the expected material behavior, partitioning of condensed matter on a
nanoscale relaxes the assumption of equi-partitioning of energy. Thus, local
modes of vibration that would normally decay in a harmonic lattice
spontaneously grow in amplitude in a nonlinear, anharmonic lattice. These
massive, but localized oscillations do not follow classical continuum
mechanics principles.

     For example, it has been shown by Suryanarayana, in "The Structure and
Mechanical Properties of Metallic Nanocrystals," Metallurgical Trans. A, Vol.
23, p. 1074, 1992, that materials with ultrafine grain dimensions are
characterized by extremely high diffusion rates. Such high diffusion rates
provide the ability to diffuse a guest species, e.g., a hydrogen isotope such
as deuterium, in a host lattice, e.g., nickel or a palladium silver alloy, to
a high ratio.

     There are many materials processing techniques within the scope of the
invention for introducing resonant anharmonic oscillations into a guest
species of a host lattice. Grain boundaries, stacking faults, free surfaces
and abrupt compositional variations are materials structures that discretize
or partition condensed matter to develop the vibrational instabilities that
are recognized by the inventors herein to promote nuclei interaction. The
simplest such method is grain refinement, which may be produced via splat
cooling, atomization, selective deposition techniques, and cold working. Cold
working by mechanical attrition has been shown to provide nanograined,
polycrystalline material composition by Koch, in "The Synthesis and Structure
of Nan, crystalline Materials Produced by Mechanical Attrition,"
Nanostructured Materials, Vol. 2, p.  109, 1993.

     Cold working or work hardening tends to result in metal morphology that
is brittle and prone to fracture. Such fracture, i.e., large cracking, of
surfaces is to be avoided here because an electric field applied to such a
cracked surface would not penetrate into cracks and fissures. As a result,
dissolved guest hydrogen isotopes in a host lattice would have an available
path to be reemitted from the host material, thereby preventing the ability
to attain a high guest to host ratio. Thus, optimization of grain size must
be balanced against tendency of a grained material to fracture. Annealing is
not a viable technique because it causes grain growth.

     As an alternative to mechanical and metallurgical techniques for
producing nanometric surface features, lithographic wet-etch techniques may
be used.  For example, referring to FIG. 4A, in a first lithographic process,
a bare substrate 30 of a selected host lattice material, for example, nickel,
is provided with a selected crystallographic orientation, for example, the
110 or 100 orientation. The 110 crystal faces are favored in the case of a
nickel host lattice substrate because the 110 planes support the highest
solubility of hydrogen isotopes of any crystallographic planes.

     As shown in FIGS. 4B, 4C and 4D, photoresist 32 is spun on the substrate
and exposed using a patterned lithographic mask 34 having a selected pattern
of sub-micron sized geometries. Preferably, the maximum pattern dimension, d,
or "duty cycle" of repeated pattern is about 0.2 .mu.m in length. Such
nanoscale features require the use of thin, state of the art photoresists.
The unexposed resist is then removed using standard techniques to produce a
photoresist etch mask. As shown in FIGS. 4E and 4F, the underlying substrate
is then anisotropically etched using an appropriate etch to produce grooves
in the substrate surface having a depth, h, of less than about 1 .mu.m.
Grooves of a greater height are less preferable because they would allow the
prismatic faces of grooves exceeding about 1 .mu.m to reconstruct to a more
harmonic, high atomic coordination state. After removing the resist etch mask
using standard photoresist processing techniques, the substrate 30 is
provided with a topology of steps 36 which all ideally exhibit sharp corners
and straight walls.

     In a second lithographic process, shown in FIGS. 5A-5F, a bare substrate
30 oriented in a preferred crystallographic orientation of [100] has
photoresist spun on its surface. The resist is then exposed using a mask
having a maximum pattern width, d, of 1 .mu.m in a grid pattern. The
unexposed resist is removed using standard resist process techniques and the
substrate is preferentially etched through openings in the remaining
photoresist etch mask. The preferential etch stops on the 111
crystallographic planes of the substrate lattice, which act as etch stop
planes and cause the etch to end at the intersection of the 111 planes within
the substrate.

     At the completion of the etch and after the removal of the photoresist
etch mask using standard photoresist process techniques, the substrate
surface comprises a pattern of grooves 38 having sharp points at the peak of
the groove and a correspondingly reverse pointed indentation into the
substrate surface. As explained in the discussion earlier, these grooves act
to produce a low coordination of surface atoms, and consequently, to increase
the anharmonicity of the hydrogen or hydrogen isotope dissolved in the
surface material. It is intended that alternative lithographic techniques may
also be employed to create suitable surface topology structures which enhance
the anharmonicity of the surface material.

     The inventors herein have found that mechanically derived surface
nanofeatures manifest a different set of properties than lithographically
etched features. By their nature, etch processes attack the most reactive
regions of a surface preferentially over the less reactive regions. The less
reactive regions are then, in turn, what is left exposed at the end of the
etch process. These exposed regions are generally characterized by localized
molecular orbitals. In contrast, mechanical processes, as opposed to etch
processes, do not selectively modify surface regions of particular
reactivity, thereby retaining the original surface reactivity, to a large
extent.

     However, wet-chemistry techniques, such as electroplating and
chromatography, also provide mechanisms for creating finely dispersed
nanometric structures on the surface of a material to enhance the material
anharmonicity. For example, in one method according to the invention,
enhanced anharmonicity of a material is achieved using nanometric-sized
particles of a second material to promote selected surface geometry via a
process such as electroplating the material of interest. In one scheme,
nanometric particles such as fullerenes are coated with 3-20 atomic layers of
a selected host lattice material, such as Ni, Ti, Pd, Zr, or their alloys
discussed above. In this scheme, the diameter of the coated fullerene
(C.sub.60)-material coating combination is between 10-30 .ANG..  The outer
metal atomic layers have such a low coordination of atoms in this geometry
that the outermost electron molecular orbitals of the layers de-localize and
enhance the anharmonicity of the metal layer at its surface. To be useful,
coated particles such as metalized fullerenes must be distributed in some
inert media, such as xeolites or carbonaceous devitrified foams. The inert
media serves two functions: it provides a support structure for the
fullerenes, and it accommodates suspension of each C.sub.60 Fullerene ball
such that they each provide the entire 4.pi.r.sup.2 of active surface area
per ball. The inert media must be of a porous nature such that it is
permeable, so that the fullerene balls can be charged via, e.g., an
electrolyte, that provides the charging interstitial species, such as
hydrogen, deuterium, or tritium.

     In an alternative embodiment according to the invention, a superlattice
of alternating materials is produced to enhance anharmonicity of the
alternating materials at each superlattice layer interface. In one scheme,
alternating layers of two materials are created using molecular beam epitaxy,
organo-metallic chemical vapor deposition, evaporation, laser ablation, or
sputtering techniques to fabricate a prespecified superlattice configuration.
Ideally, these deposition and growth processes are highly controlled such
that they produce high quality superlattice structures having abrupt
interfaces at each layer. Preferred material groups for the alternating
superlattice layer pairs include Au--Ni, Cu--Pd, Cu--Ni, Ag--Pd, Ni--Pd,
Cu--Ni, Ni--Ti, Zr--P, Pd--P, Ni--Zr, Zr--Pd, and Zr--Ti. Other layer
material groups may also be suitable. The layer thicknesses preferably vary
from about 1-30 nm, depending on the growth or deposition technique. At these
small layer thicknesses, the interfacial regions where one material layer
meets the next are characterized by lattice distortion, altered atomic
coordinations and orbital de-localization. As explained in the discussion
above, these conditions promote an enhancement of the system's anharmonicity,
and corresponding enhancement of nuclei interaction rate.

     Ion sputtering of metallic targets is perhaps the superlattice
fabrication process most amenable to a large area processing scheme. Such
large area processing is ideal for creating a host lattice structure of
desired size.  In this process, the substrate is placed is a vacuum chamber,
after which the chamber is evacuated. An ion beam is directed at, for
example, a Nickel target located in the chamber or with access to the
chamber, and nickel vapors are deposited onto the substrate. To produce the
superlattice, the ion beam is alternately directed at the nickel target and,
for example, a copper target, for a prescribed amount of time sufficient to
deposit alternating layers of nickel and copper. Typical deposition times are
based on a deposition rate of less than about 2 nanometers/minute. Based on
this rate, a superlattice of 30 Ni--Cu layers, each 2 nm-thick, may be
processed in one hour. The temperature of the superlattice substrate is
selected to maximize the abruptness of each layer junction, keeping in mind
that low temperature depositions reduce the amount of alloying at, for
example, each Ni--Cu interface.

     Superlattice structures so created enhance local anhamonic conditions
not only at the external surface of the structures, but also at every
interface in the superlattice array. Thus, for a 40-50 layer superlattice,
the active volume of less than about 5 .mu.m in thickness generates heat, due
to anharmonicity effects on deuterium nuclei interaction at each interface of
the superlattice, that cannot be transferred away from the interface as
effectively as heat generated at the external surface of the superlattice. In
this case, the interior of the lattice begins to "overheat" as the heat
production via anharmonic interactions exceed the thermal diffusivity of the
lattice materials. Temperature does not strongly effect anharmonic
oscillation, as it does harmonic oscillation, but several hundred degrees
Centigrade of generated heat may be sufficient to initiate a static
Jahn-Teller distortion that results in quenching anharmonic oscillations.

     Still other surface processing techniques are intended by the invention
herein. For example, ion implantation of, for example, Cr into Ni, creates
surface damage of the Nickel and provides a mechanism for producing the
desired atomic delocalization.

     Referring to FIG. 6, there is shown an experimental setup 40 for
producing and measuring the effect of enhanced anharmonicity on the
interaction of guest sublattice nuclei dissolved in a host lattice. This
setup 40 comprises, for example, an interaction cell 45, which is monitored
to provide indicative signals via a pressure line 47, a current line 48, a
radiation line 50, and a voltage line 52. Each of these signal lines are
provided to an analog to digital converter (A/D) 54, which is connected to a
PC 56, provided with a display 580

     As shown in FIG. 7, the interaction cell 45 consists of, for example, a
30 liter Pyrex calorimetry vessel 46 containing heavy water, light water, or
a suitable mixture of the two, and a suitable electrolyte, such as 0.6 Molar
potassium carbonate (K.sub.2 CO.sub.3) 48 in which are submerged electrodes
50, 52, described below. Nonwater-based electrolytic solutions may also be
suitable. The containment vessel 46 serves primarily to contain the
electrolyte and not decompose contamination into electrodes submerged within
it. The electrolyte provides a source of protons or deuterons without
contaminating the surface of the electrodes. It also serves to establish a
high double potential just outside the surface of the electrodes that
provides a voltage gradient which shifts the dynamic equilibrium of solvation
and favors a high density of protons or deuterons in the solid, once such
species dissolves in the solid, as explained below. The volume of electrolyte
is of secondary importance. Heat transfer mechanisms are the main purpose of
the water. Water is excellent in this capacity because it is chemically
stable, inflammable, and has a large specific heat. Other electrolytes may be
used. The electrical conductivity as well as the polarizability of the
electrolyte may be preferably optimized for a given type of electrode
material. For example, NaCO.sub.3 or RbCO.sub.3 may be used.

     Also submerged in the liquid within the containment vessel are two
thermocouples 54, 56, for determining the temperature in the liquid and the
air above the liquid, respectively, within the vessel. Each of the
thermocouples is monitored by suitable apparatus, such as the PC 56 of the
experimental setup.

     The containment vessel 46 is provided with a teflon lid (not shown),
which is to be loosely mounted on the vessel once the vessel configuration is
in place. The looseness of the mounting is intended to allow pressure release
during operation such that no hazardous pressure build-up occurs within the
vessel. Additionally, a pressure relief valve 58 may be provided on the
vessel lid. The lid also provides for the pressure line mentioned above, and
sensing lines for a gauge, for example, a Bourdon gauge, and a radiation
detector 50. The radiation detector may be mounted either inside or outside
the vessel, or preferable, one detector is mounted inside while a second
detector is mounted outside of the vessel. The detector located inside the
vessel may be located, for example, very dose to the electrode 50. One
suitable detector (for Tritium) is the Bicron Industries Corp.  scintillation
detector.

     A programmable DC power supply 62 is connected to the electrodes 50, 52
within the vessel via corresponding connections 66, 64, in a configuration as
given below. The electrodes within the vessel comprise a cathode 50 and an
anode 52. The cathode 50 consists of, for example, a perforated teflon spacer
68 having an 8-inch diameter, around which is wound a suitable host lattice
material, such as nickel wire 70, or other selected material. A suitable
amount of nickel wire is approximately 2-20 pounds of wire.

     Such nickel wire 70 might comprise 0.003" nickel-200 wire. This
commercially available wire is composed of >98.5% nickel, with small amounts
of iron and cobalt. The wire may be treated with any of the surface topology
processes described above to enhance the anharmonicity of the wire system.
For example, the wire may be pulled through a laser-treated diamond die (as
described above) such that surface relief structures on the die impart
corresponding nanometric topological structures on the wire surface. The wire
may be loosely braided into a cable of 125 strands, or some other braid
scheme. The cable is wrapped loosely around the teflon spacer such that a
maximum amount of wire surface area is exposed. The braiding scheme also
provides the ability to increase the surface area for a given amount of wire
material. Other cathode wire and material alternatives are also suitable. The
wrapped spacer 68 is entirely submerged in the liquid 48 within the
containment vessel. From its location in the vessel, the cathode 50,
comprising the spacer 68 and wire 70, is connected to the negative line 66 of
the power supply 62 via a spot-welded solid nickel rod 72, or other
connecting line.  This rod is thick enough to carry a high current density
without overheating a connecting fitting 74 in the vessel lid.

     In an alternate cathode configuration, a scintillation material is
plated with nickel and attached to the cathode configuration 50 described
above.  This configuration provides a radiation detector mechanism in
intimate contact with host lattice material, and may be connected to the
radiation detector line 50 described above.

     In a further alternative cathode configuration (not shown), a sheet of
planar nickel or palladium alloy NSP processed as described above via, e.g.
diamond scribing and anisotropic etching, is used in its sheet form as a
cathode, or alternatively, rolled in a manner like that of electrolytic
capacitors, forming a coiled tube which provides a large cathode surface area
within a comparatively small volume. Such a cathode configuration, like the
others, is entirely submerged in the liquid within a containment vessel. The
rolled structure is particularly efficient in that it allows the liquid to
deliver the protons or deuterons while at the same time providing a surface
cooling mechanism via flushing of the liquid across the cathode surface.

     Referring to FIG. 8, the anode 52 is shown in more detail. The anode
consists of, for example, a cage 76 of chemically inert metal, such as
titanium or nickel, which is plated with 0.0005" platinum. The cage diameter
is 6" and the cage height is 6". Such a cage is made of top and bottom metal
tings 78, 80, respectively, connected between which are metal fins 82, each
fin having the dimensions of 0.030" in thickness and 5/8" in width. A number
of such fins, five for example, are spot-welded to the top and bottom tings
78, 80. The particularly chosen size and number of fins is based on the
amount of the cathode material used. Without an adequate anode surface size,
the operation of the cell set-up may become current limited. The top ring 78
is also spot-welded to a 1/8" nickel rod 84 for connection to the positive
line 64 of the power supply 62.

     In operation, the power supply is set to provide a voltage drop of not
less than 0.5 volts below the hydrogen overvoltage of 1.43 V forward biased
between the anode and cathode. Electrolysis proceeds during the voltage
application to dissolve a large ratio of hydrogen isotope, e.g., deuterium,
into the host lattice; ideally a guest-host ratio of greater than 0.8 is
achieved via the electrolysis.

     As discussed above, nanoscale features on the host lattice, e.g., the
nickel wire surface, enhance the transport of deuterium into the nickel
surface and thereby promote such a high loading ratio. Further enhancement is
provided using a chopped DC voltage rather than a constant DC voltage.  The
use of this signal scheme is motivated as follows. Maintenance of a high
guest loading ratio requires a strong electric field gradient at the host
surface. However, unintentional impurities in the electrolytic cell may
hinder the existence of this gradient; such impurities in the cell invariably
transport to the surface of the cathode, where they deposit on the cathode
host surface. The impurities generally establish a polarization layer on the
surface that reduces the effectiveness of the E-field there. This is due to
the nature of the polarization layers responding in a capacitive manner; that
is, the transport of charge across the polarization layer decays under the
application of a constant DC field, as would be expected to occur across
capacitor plates. Thus, such polarization layers act as an open circuit to an
applied constant DC voltage. Accordingly, it is preferred that an AC voltage
component be superimposed on a quiescent DC voltage to sustain transport
across any polarization layers; such capacitive polarization layers act as a
short circuit, rather than an open circuit, to the AC component.

     The applied voltage is thus preferred to be a positive DC voltage with a
duty cycle of between 5-2000 Hz, e.g., a square wave signal with a positive
DC offset voltage, and an amplitude switching no less than 0.5 V below the
hydrogen overvoltage of 1.43 V. With such a voltage scheme, the near surface
of the host cathode acts like a diode, magnifying charge transport in the
forward bias mode and restricting transport of dissolved guest species back
out of the surface. In chemical terms, the DC chopping voltage acts to shift
the dynamic equilibrium to a state favoring higher concentrations of guest
species.

     The current density of the operating cell is determined based on the
cell's operating environment; the current density of the cathode host
material is preferably not more than 100 .mu./cm.sup.2. Given a requirement
to keep the power density to a reasonable level, and considering the fact
that the anharmonicity enhancement techniques of the invention are surface
phenomenon, the power density is minimized via a cathode design providing an
increase in surface to volume ratio of the cathode. For example, the cathode
host material may be fabricated, as described above, as large, thin sheets,
and then the two electrodes may be interleaved with anode structures wound in
parallel with the cathode in a design like that of an electrolytic capacitor.
In such a design, the electrode sheets are ideally fabricated thinly, for
example, as thin as 0.001", separated by a distance of 0.025". This
separation distance is provided by some insulating media, e.g., even the
liquid itself. Heat resulting from the operation of such an anode-cathode
configuration in the ,operating cell electrolyte is transferred via cycling
of the electrolyte through the cylindrical volume.

     During cell operation, the electrolyte temperature is operated at a
selected point for optimizing transport of heat from the electrodes. For
example, the electrolyte may be maintained at or near its boiling point
because this phase change can transport energy at a constant temperature.

     Operation of a cell in the manner described above provides optimization
of the materials and system for enhancing anharmonic oscillations of the
system and correspondingly enhancing the probability for interaction of
nuclei within the lattice. As discussed above, the methods of the invention
taught herein for producing this enhancement are all based on recognition by
the inventors herein that nanometric discretization of highly nonlinear
materials produces large localized vibrational instabilities, giving rise to
large-amplitude oscillation of nuclei within the material. Such oscillation
provides a corresponding enhancement of the potential for nuclei in the
material to interact.

     Other embodiments, features, and processing methods are intended within
the scope of the invention, as defined by the claims.

CLMS  Claims STM     Claim Statement:			We claim: NUM
Claim Number:				1.

     1. Apparatus for producing dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a
condensed matter guest species comprising:

 a condensed matter host lattice having surfaces upon at least a portion of
which are provided surface features, said features having a radius of
curvature less than 0.5 microns, and

 means for dissolving said guest species in said host lattice in a ratio of
at least 0.5, the guest species undergoing said dynamic anharmonic
oscillations upon dissolution in said host lattice.  NUM     Claim Number:
2.

     2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein said guest species is dissolved in
said host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.8.  NUM     Claim Number:
3.

     3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the host lattice comprises
palladium.  NUM     Claim Number:				4.

     4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the host lattice comprises an alloy
of palladium silver.  NUM     Claim Number:				5.

     5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the host lattice comprises the
palladium silver alloy Pd.sub..77 Ag.sub..23.  NUM     Claim Number:
6.

     6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the host lattice comprises nickel.
NUM     Claim Number:				7.

     7. The apparatus of any of claims 3, 4, 5, or 6, wherein the guest
species comprises hydrogen.  NUM     Claim Number:
8.

     8. The apparatus of any of claims 3, 4, 5, or 6, wherein the guest
species comprises deuterium.  NUM     Claim Number:
9.

     9. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the means for dissolving said guest
species comprises a container for an electrolytic solution containing said
guest species.  NUM     Claim Number:				10.

     10. The apparatus of claim 9 wherein the condensed matter host lattice
comprises a palladium silver alloy cathode, and the means for dissolving said
guest species farther comprises:

 a platinum-coated anode,

 a support for the cathode such that the cathode is submerged when in the
electrolytic solution, and

 a support for the anode such that the anode is submerged when in the
electrolytic solution.  NUM     Claim Number:				11.

     11. The apparatus of claim 10 wherein the cathode comprises a sheet of
palladium silver alloy rolled to form a coil tube of said sheet.  NUM
Claim Number:				12.

     12. The apparatus of claim 9 wherein the condensed matter host lattice
comprises a cathode, and the means for dissolving said guest species further
comprises:

 an anode,

 a support for the cathode such that the cathode is submerged when in the
electrolytic solution, and

 a support for the anode such that the anode is submerged when in the
electrolytic solution.  NUM     Claim Number:				13.

     13. The apparatus of claim 12 wherein the cathode comprises a wire.  NUM
Claim Number:				14.

     14. The apparatus of either of claims 11 or 13 wherein the anode
comprises at least one platinum-coated wire.  NUM     Claim Number:
15.

     15. The apparatus of either of claims 11 or 12 wherein the electrolytic
solution comprises a solution of heavy water and K.sub.2 CO.sub.3.  NUM
Claim Number:				16.

     16. The apparatus of either of claims 11 or 12 wherein the electrolytic
solution comprises a solution of light water and K.sub.2 CO.sub.3.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 1 Aug 1995 05:00:21 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DCKL24.CAs@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>In article <3vghac$bem@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>To achieve break-even I think all you need to do is put a 50-50
>>mix of D-T fuel in a high-performance JET (Joint European Torus - world's
>>largest tokamak) plasma discharge.  They expect to get breakeven in
>>a couple years when they switch to D-T fuel.
>
>Is this old??  I thought they have run D-T.  Perhaps not 50/50?  But
>enough for extrapolations, correct?  

Right, they ran 10% T and 90% D in 1991 (generating about 2 MW
of fusion power); that pluse the TFTR results allows some
fairly solid extrapolation to breakeven in JET.

>>[ There is an outside chance that TFTR can achieve breakeven at
>>approx 20 MW fusion power using the new reversed shear 
>>enhanced confinement mode; more news on this soon. ]
> 
>Gee, Bob, could you please also add in contributions from all sources 
>which constitute the total energy associated with a shot?  

From a scientific-breakeven point of view they aren't relevant;
I wasn't claiming engineering breakeven or anything like that.
You know as well as I do that in an actual reactor the magnets 
would be superconducting and the power required to keep them 
cool would be small compared to the auxiliary power 
required to drive the plasma to ignition (and perhaps
drive the current).  Even a plasmak is going to need
to recirculate some power for compression!

But if you insist on doing all the energy accounting, then
for TFTR you would have to include many megawatts to power
the magnetic coils.  Coil plus heating power is virtually all
the power needed.  Coil power is not counted in discussions
of scientific breakeven.

>>Since breakeven is [relatively] trivial, here is the main hurdle to be 
>>overcome in getting an ignited plasma:  the plasma quality, defined by the
>>"Lawson value" (product of particle density and energy confinement time) 
>>is a factor of 5-10 too small for ignition (5 in JET, 10 in TFTR).  
>
>>Some of the obvious ideas - reducing instabilities, using
>>strong auxiliary heating, reducing impurity influx into the 
>>plasma - have already been implemented successfully (yielding 
>>tremendous progress from 1975 to 1995).
>
>But, again, this isn't the whole picture.  Some of these 
>"implementations" are at odds with "other implementations". 
>For example, if you want to increase alpha particle heating, you 
>might improve it by holding on to the alphas a will longer 'till
>most of there energy is spent through collisions.  On the other
>hand, one may want to decrease Bremsstrahlung so keeping the 
>effective "Z" low is a technique that works.  That means getting
>rid of the alphas, even if the an optimal amount of kinetic energy
>isn't extracted.  

Actually, in a tokamak Bremmstrahlung losses from alphas are
hardly a problem.  Unless you have a better example I'm going
to conclude that the only problem is that these "implementations"
are merely at odds with your political views.  Most of the 
ideas would work well together; for instance, shaping
and profile control are not at odds with one another, and
alpha channeling is not going to mess up impurity content.

>>(1) The ITER method:  build a larger reactor to get the extra
>>confinement time from sheer size.  [Also using some shaping,
>>but not H-mode.]
>>        Advantage:  we're confident we can do it.
>>        Disadvantage:  costs about $10 billion.
>
>To be clear that is 10 billion dollars "MORE" === "additional".  

More than what?  You're not being clear at all.

>>(2) The Shaping method:  play with the plasma shape to get extra 
>>density and confinement time from better plasma performance.
>>(It turns out that vertically elongated, kidney-bean-shaped plasmas
>>have higher pressure limits and better energy confinement).
>>        Advantage:  not very expensive; get a factor of 2 improvement
>>        Disadvantage:  not thoroughly tested
>
>I think there has been plenty work enough on this approach at GA in
>La Jolla.  The problem is that even though it gives you a higher Beta, 
>it unfortunately produces such a mechanical coil stress that the 
>applied field has to be dropped by 2.  So actually, you will lose; 
>since it has other problems that add both cost and complexity.   

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  TPX was designed to
be as heavily shaped as DIII-D, and it wasn't going to run at
half the field.  I know DIII-D has recently damaged its 
poloidal field system, which limits their operating ability, 
but I have yet to hear any sort of explanation why.
There are a lot of highly-shaped tokamaks besides DIII-D which
are doing just fine, anyway.  What about Alcator, with the
highest fields in the business?

Again, I think the biggest problem you have with shaping is
that it doesn't fit your political mindset.

>>(3) The Profile Control method:  tweak the plasma to have current, 
>>pressure and temperature profiles that either maximize fusion power 
>>output, reduce energy transport losses, or allow higher core densities.
>>[ I would fit Reversed Shear into this category, since they achieve
>>it by controlling the current profile, and thus the magnetic shear. ]
>>        Advantage:  might also get another factor-of-2 [or better!] 
>>                     improvement
>>        Disadvantage:  [may] require a lot of expensive hardware, not
>>                        very well understood yet
>
>Again, you will have **BIG** problems with coil stresses, and less room
>for plasma.  This will tend to constrict the cross section which will
>go against stability.   

Again, I think you're out in left field.  If I control the profiles
and get a more highly peaked density and temperature profile, I have
*more* plasma in the machine (counting particles, that is).  
Do you have a serious argument here or are you just going to
speak in implausible obscurities?

>>Aside: TPX was designed to take maximum advantage of shaping and
>>profile control in a large-scale experiment.
>
>Boy! the truth outs?  PPPL is pulling the stops out to snow congress 
>to reverse themselves on TPX funding??  My guess is you all (PPPL) 
>aren't truely putting out both sides of the story.  Perhaps this is
>a perceptual problem that comes from the environ within which you 
>are functioning. If so, I've been too tough as is my usual problem.

There you go again!  (1) I hardly represent PPPL, considering that
I'm but a wee grad student; (2) I think PPPL has (for the most
part) pretty much accepted that TPX is a lost cause; most of the
scientists are interested in extending TFTR to do some more studies
of the enhanced reversed shear mode, alpha channeling, and other
new ideas that have shown promise here in the past six months.
It would appear that you have once again allowed your political
perspective to cloud your perception of who I am, what I stand
for, and even why I said what I said.  Keep in mind that the
original sentence was part of a *private email* and had nothing
to do with Congress, anyway.

>>(4) The Low Aspect-Ratio method (NSTX):  a fatter torus (smaller 
>>donut hole) should "naturally" give you better profiles and higher 
>>densities.
>>        Advantage:  smaller machines needed, not as expensive  
>>        Disadvantages:  may have worse confinement; hard to engineer
>>                          the center core against neutrons.
>
>Not only that, but it, too, has toroidal field coil problems, 
>... mostly from heating along the major axis. This design squeezes 
>that cross-section down to difficult levels.  Also I believe they
>can not operate the coils with cryogenic cooling.  

Didn't I say "hard to engineer the center core against neutrons"?
All you've done is draw some logical conclusions from that.
But a low-aspect ratio machine might be great for advanced fuels,
because of its relatively compact size and high beta.  And the
physics is worth studying for its own sake, plus insights it
might give into scaling of other machines.

>>(5) The Transport Suppression method:  there have been some reports
...
>>[ Reversed-shear seems to be a transport suppression scheme too. ]
...
  
>Also consider the shear of Spheromaks.  They are already hugely 
>more compact. 

There you go again with your profoundly vague obscurities.
Is it really that much effort to say something intelligible?

> But THEN there is our very inexpensive PLASMAK(TM) 
>generators, which are super stable and can be cheaply heated to 
>colossal temperatures by straight forward mechanical (fluid) 
>compression.  

"can be"??  hahahahahaha!!!  Talk about promising the moon when
you haven't even shown you can get off the ground!  Where's 
the evidence?  Have you gotten beyond using the VCR for you
diagnostics yet?  Frankly I think your fluid compression 
will simply blow out your plasma due to the turbulent flows 
of fast fluid compression combined with charge-exchange 
losses cooling your plasma.  (I'd be much less skeptical 
if you were going to try a highly-leveraged magnetic 
compression by (perhaps) ramping up (or down) a magnetic 
field along the axis of the toroid and letting the Ideal 
MHD flux-freezing law do all the work.  Or is that not 
possible for some reason?)

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 1 Aug 1995 11:11:04 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <1995Jul31.151346.17907@nosc.mil>,
Mark H. North <north@nosc.mil> wrote:

>In any case, off topic posts will be cancelled (I just
>cancelled three myself, it's easy).

Sending forged cancel messages is a far worse breach of netiquette than
off-topic posts.  Those of us fortunate to have decent newsreaders can
always consign off-topic threads to the killfile, but only those people 
on systems that ignore "cancel" messages will be able to read the ones
you cancelled.

Much as I agree that posts on relativity, Plutonium, solar energy, 
hemoglobin, etc., do not belong here, I have to wonder who exactly
died and made you Guardian of S.P.F.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat."   -- Zippy
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Winning the Swartz challange
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Winning the Swartz challange
Date: 1 Aug 1995 11:14:30 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <9507311653.AA17456@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:

>I respond to the Swartz challange by suggesting that he find one example
>of a state that is unbound with respect to neutron emission that has a lifetime
>as long as a nanosecond.  To make this interesting I may even hint that
>such things do exist.  They don't, however, exist in the nucleus in question -
>4He.

Hey, this isn't fair -- go to the back of the line and wait your turn.
I am still waiting to see Swartz's calculation of the magnitude of the
isotope shift for the 57Fe Moessbauer experiment I described.  He said that
my calculation was off by 5 orders of magnitude, but he has yet to
show where I went wrong.  (That question, btw, was intended as a prelude
to the more important question:  what is the relationship between the
nuclear charge and the magnitude of the isotope shift.)  
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Marshall Dudley theory
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory
Date: 26 Jul 1995 16:54:31 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <USE2PCB641667606@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
> 
>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.

You are confusing the kinetic energy of a particle with the decay of 
one particle into another.  In your example, the beta and alpha only 
slow down, they do not change into something different. 

>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.  

It is well established that you cannot make infinitesimal changes in energy 
for a quantum system.  That excited nucleus only makes discrete changes in 
energy, jumping from one state to the next.  The exception is for continuum 
states, but those break up on strong interaction (fm/c) time scales unless 
you are in a narrow resonance state. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | is also the British Olympic training  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | site.  Why?  Dewpoint of 75-80 F. 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | Normal Hi/Lo: 92/71 
Record: 98/67               
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 /  fusion /  Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA   lawyers
     
Originally-From: fusion@access.digex.net (fusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA   lawyers
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 04:48:44 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

>  Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  Has
>anyone been sued for systematic attack on the Internet yet? And if any
>law firm out there in California interested in this case of mine,
>please contact me. For if there is no legal precedence, and a law firm
>sees enough money in my case. I will be more than happy to take a
>sabbatical from Dartmouth in order to execute such a lawsuit. People
>whose intent is to victimize, and delight in it, need to see some
>action . .

Actually, I believe you posted that certain people would be condemned
to ACHERON (isn't that in Ohio), STYX (one album wonder), etc...

Believe it or not, if you have caused any mental anguish in the
superstitious by your posting (which, you must admit was an attempt to
cause harm to people you cannot physically harm) you are libel for
damages.  No joke.  :(    I don't know if the internet let's you get
away with this.  But, even in the free-est of free speech societies,
the harm you cause with your mouth is yours to pay for.

**********************************************
A man between two laywers is like a
steak between two dogs......
**********************************************


cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenfusion cudlnfusion cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 1 Aug 1995 04:26:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3vgp0d$3o68@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce D. Scott,
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

[ my list of approaches for building a fusion reactor snipped ]

>Except for "the ITER method", all of these will be better addressed
>computationally before a major restructuring in terms of hardware is
>committed.

So long as you're not advocating eliminating the smaller 
experiments that are needed to verify the computational theories, 
I'm largely inclined to agree with you.  (I suspect some of 
the ideas would be much easier to study empirically on smaller
machines, though.)  ITER seems to be too much too soon, and 
we could probably accomplish the same goals for less cost 
if we gave ourselves a little more time now.

>By about five years, or maybe less, transport in confined,
>magnetised plasmas will have ceased to be a mystery, and I don't just
>mean tokamaks (in which the two-dimensional character of the geometry is
>a real bonus for computations).  We will have sufficient power to test
>known transport physics via direct simulation in all of the different
>configurations people have dreamed up and explore various ways to
>externally control profiles and magnetic geometry.  Then, not now, is
>the time to think of designing a reactor.

You're saying all we need is roughly a quadrupling of CPU power?
(My sense of things is that that's about what we'd gain 
computationally in five years.)  Or are we brainpower-limited
and not CPU-power limited?

It sounds to me like you're overpromising a little, though
I sympathize with your point of view.  I'd like to hear
more about this though.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Rothwell's mysterious memory...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's mysterious memory...
Date: 1 Aug 1995 04:14:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <pdBCRhZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>
>There has been a tedious discussion here about "off-topic" postings. Robert
>Heeter, who frequently writes about hot fusion, says that people should not
>publish message here about aspects of science that may have nothing to do with
>CF. 

I just checked through all my recent posts to this forum, and I don't see
anywhere where I said that.  Would you care to explain, with quotations 
from my postings, how you came to this conclusion?  I am on record as
saying that whole threads on general relativity, alien life, and personal
messages between single users do not belong on this group, as well
as advertisements for book sales.  I *will* say _now_ that after an
initial
posting discussions about topics which are not clearly related to *fusion*
(not just CF) should be restricted to more appropriate groups; after all,
that's the internet netiquette standard.

>My guess is that hot fusion has little to do with CF, so perhaps Heeter
>should take a dose of his own medicine and take his Tokamaks elsewhere. 

This is a totally bogus conclusion, since I never came remotely close
to saying what you claim I said above.

>In any
>case I think this approach is misguided and I urge readers to stop this petty
>arguing. 

I agree, your approach was thoroughly misguided. :) Not only did you fail
to bring forth any evidence to justify what you wrote above, you
completely
misrepresented my position, despite the fact that all of this is very
recent stuff and it should have been trivial to verify your opinion
against
what I actually wrote.  Frankly I think there would be less of "this petty
arguing" if people were a little more careful about what they read and
say.

[ some deletion ]

>That is mere speculation on my part, but I do have an important point: since
>we do not know what CF is, and since it appears to upset many longstanding
>theories, we cannot predict which branch of science may provide important
>answers to the mystery of CF. So a discussion of CF must remain open minded to
>all branches of science, including ones that on the surface seem unlikely to
>be helpful. At this stage, the eclectic approach is essential.

That would be a good argument for CF researchers to read other newsgroups.
It doesn't justify violating principles of netiquette to include every
article
of every thread that might conceivably relate to fusion.  The first
article
of the thread is more than enough, and people can follow the threads in
the more appropriate home group.
 
>To answer Rowe's rhetorical question: Yes, you should feel free to discuss
>that subject here on the possibility it might be related to CF. It is vital to
>the scientific process that you do that. Other things essential to the
>scientific process are free speech, freedom of expression, an open minded
>attitude, and a willingness to suspend believe and withhold judgement of new
>ideas. 

Also vital are respect for your fellow-citizens, respect for the 
intellectual quality of the forums in which you discuss your science, 
and a willingness to use your open-minded attitude in actually following 
interesting threads back to their home newsgroups, rather than endlessly 
and unnecessarily sustaining threads in multiple discussion groups.  
If someone wanted to talk about CF surface physics, that's fine here, 
but if it's a topic which is only tenuously related to CF (like the 
GR thread), then there are usually other groups which are more 
appropriate.  USENET works a lot better when people read multiple
newsgroups but articles stay in just one or two groups, than vice versa.

>These constitute the bedrock basis of science and other enlightened
>academic inquiry in fields like history, sociology, anthropology. In all
>cases, it is far better to err on the side of caution and open mindedness. A
>thousand ideas that appear to be irrelevant or mistaken may, in fact, contain
>just one idea that turns out to be of vital importance to the field, so no
>idea should be ignored just because at first glance it appears to be
>irrelevant, and no poster should be told to go elsewhere.
> 
>On the other hand, there are some threads which even the posters themselves
>will grant have gotten off the subject. I think, for example, the discussion
>of solar energy photovoltaic chips in road beds should be moved to sci.energy.
>Four or five messages about this are fine, but if the topic continues to
>attract discussion, I would favor moving it to another forum. Unless, that is,
>someone suddenly realizes that photovoltaic chips may have some vital link to
>CF.

But wait!  Photovoltaic chips depend on semiconductor surface 
physics!  And you just said that had to do with CF!  The same
fabrication techniques will be used!  :)

(Actually, I think your last paragraph here is very reasonable,
and expresses the same concerns as I had about the GR thread.
It is possible for people with vastly different scientific
perspectives to agree on how USENET ought to work.)


 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 00:12:16 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3vheni$so7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>I am not sure what the
>provocation is this time since I did not read the offending post, but
>the discussion that I heard the last time questioned whether or not it
>was the proper thing to do no matter what he actually said. It

Ben, believe me, Plutonium was pretty raunchy. Due to the traffic on
this subject I felt compelled to read his comment despite the fact
that I usually simply bypass anything with his name on it.

The thing that bothers me is that these same people would be outraged if
anyone questioned _their_ rights to post. If you are _forced_ to read
his drivel then by all means exercise your right to _not_ be forced to
be so confronted.

But no one needs to read his posts. It is individual choice to read him.
So acting put out by his comments reflects much more on those who are
so inculted rather than on Plutonium (who we all know is bereft.)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 00:22:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I seem to have forgotten to take Tim Hollenbeck's 'sig' off of the
bottom of his message. Please forgive my mistake and realize that
I was taking pot-shots at him, not him me. :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electrom
g,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 1 Aug 1995 01:54:16 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vheni$so7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) writes:

> Let me give you one way that freedom of speech enters into this.
> Dartmouth is a university. Universities have a traditional position
> that is for free speech. Dartmouth in particular has a history of
> encouraging freedom of access and speech. Since Archimedes is an
> employee of the university (albeit indirectly), he gets access. Now
> should an institution, with such goals clearly laid out in a number of
> places (including the Dartmouth Computing Code), restrict the freedom
> of speech of a member of the institution? Last summer the university
> decided that Ludwig Plutonium (his name at that time) went too far with
> his "Jew York Times" comment and temporarily suspended his ability to
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> post. They were within their rights to make that decision about the use
> of their name and equipment, but the question of whether it was the
> right thing to do is open to question. I am not sure what the
> provocation is this time since I did not read the offending post, but
> the discussion that I heard the last time questioned whether or not it
> was the proper thing to do no matter what he actually said. It
> certainly was the safe decision from a legal standpoint, but there were
> questions raised about the appropriateness of the decision. (The
> student newspaper in particular had an editorial that was opposed to
> the decision.)
> 
> Ben Tilly

  I have no ill feelings over what Dartmouth administration did
concerning that Neanderthal Park movie skit where I called the NYT what
I called. And if Dartmouth admin want to modify my account such that
the word dartmouth or dartvax does not appear at all in any of my
postings I would appreciate it. I , for a long time have made a
diligent effort on my own part to put Plutonium ---- in place of
Dartmouth in the organization block. Sometimes I forget to change that
block.

  These college, Dartmouth was a pioneer in computer language and so I
feel that some smart person around here could remove all hints of
Dartmouth from my posts, but my access to Dartmouth community is not
impaired. Dartmouth College is perhaps a world leader in computers on
campus and it is in Dartmouth's efficiency to not restrict computer use
but to take all opportunities. Many people who come to Dartmouth from
other campuses see how "open" and charming is computers to Dartmouth.

  And why a person like Ben Bullock of KEK, Japan posts offensive
"judgements" about Dartmouth College

In article <135304Z28071995@anon.penet.fi>
an211894@anon.penet.fi (DORAEMON) writes:

> Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu)
> N: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY 
> P: UG. 
> S: NL. UG.
> C: Plutonium is a dishwasher at Dartmouth college, New Hampshire.  His
> educational institution has a misguided policy of giving internet
> access to all employees.  He used to call himself Ludwig (Van?) 

  Be any college or university in the world so lucky as to have
computer access that Dartmouth offers.

  But anyway, I thank the Dartmouth newspaper editors who were kind of
"against" my being kicked-off the computers for the NYT article.
Americans, especially New Hampshirers concern themselves with liberty.
On the auto plates of this state it says "LIVE FREE, OR DIE". I guess
that is this states motto.

  I did not really mind that kicking off because I needed a month
break, recess from the net anyway.

  But I am peeved off over the NYT and the root cause for me in writing
that Neanderthal movie skit. I want to outline it here. 
  I had seen many NYT articles on science and math. Many which I did
not agree with and felt they were propagandizing for Einstein.

 I know physics history. Poincare pronounced the Principle of Special
Relativity years before, long before Einstein was even known by
physicists. Lorentz did the math of Special Relativity long before
Einstein was known. And Lorentz published it  long before Einstein.

  So then Special Relativity (SR) was thought up by Poincare, not
Einstein.

   The Math of SR was done by Lorentz, not Einstein.

  Later, much later, Einstein came on the scene and took Poincare's
Special Relativity theory and recast what Lorentz had already done.

   So, why has the world not given these two men Poincare and Lorentz
their just and rightful credit?

   Einstein recast what Lorentz and Poincare did. And so the most
generous we can be to Einstein and Special Relativity is to say that
Special Relativity was the discovery of Poincare, not Lorentz and not
Einstein.  Lorentz and Einstein pushed Poincare's theory of SR further.


  But the history of physics from 1904 to present has been horribly
mangled. Because Einstein was of a religious background he has been
given an inordinate press,  press coverage by that religious
background.

  Is it proper that a religious group give coverage in press, biography
books even text books, ownership of a science theory which really
belongs to Poincare and Lorentz more than Einstein. Obviously that
religious group likes to play on the fact that Mr. Einstein was a smart
man but is it proper and just to Mr Poincare and Mr. Lorentz to take,
expropriate, steal by constant press coverage of a theory from their
true owners?  Is it best to further a religion at the expense of
soft-stealing a science theory from its rightful owners? If Wallace had
been of this religion group or one which had a powerful press would we
now all be calling it the Wallace theory of bio evolution? If Leibniz
had been of a religion which had a powerful press then calculus
discovery would have rubbed out all mention of Newton?

  When I saw the front cover of NYT and saw that Einstein's name was in
bold print again, and the article was not even about relativity theory
and this article was giving Einstein further credit for something he
had nothing to do with. Well, I am sick of religion going in and foul
treating the true history of physics , just for the furthering of
religion.  I am tired of religion press   messing up the  history of
physics. And we know what affiliation NYT has. 

  Einstein gets full credit for photoelectric effect,   and for  e =
mcc

and for General Relativity.  But to soft - steal work from other people
to steal Special Relativity because the true first discoverers were not
of a religious background is not correct. And I think many more people
should voice their opinion on this matter.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Doug Merritt /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 23:13:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3vj6og$5bh@martha.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
>Same for fossil fuels but nobody is making them pay.  The present existing
>health damage from fossil fuel burning is quantifiable and real and present
>TODAY but exxon isn't required to pay for this.

Some argue that coal plants are far worse than both petroleum *and*
fission pollution put together, and including both chemical and
radioactive pollution (due to release of naturally radioactive isotopes
in the coal into the atmosphere).

>Nothing's wrong with solar at all, except for the fact it's cloudy alot of
>places.

With high efficiency cells, in many locations the problem is not so
much the average ambient light, but the storage problem when it *is*
cloudy. I.e. batteries yet again.

>And what about environmental problems from very large scale silicon
>processing?  (all those nasty solvents to make chips are already a problem
>making 8 inch high value wafers).

And now 12 inch, I hear. But the semiconductor manufacturers have been
steadily improving their waste cleanup. It's far better now than some
years ago, although not perfect. At least in this area.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / A Plutonium /  Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA 
Date: 1 Aug 1995 02:37:28 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

1994
Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) reprises his
viewpoint :
> Most respondents turn this into a free speech issue, and I'm 
> all for free speech. But, it could also be viewed as a mental 
> health issue: mentally ill/unstable folks such as Ludwig  ..


1995, a year later with I would guess 50 of these kind of posts
In article <3vfh8b$fji@soenews.ucsd.edu>
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> I don't think Mr. Plutonium needs censureship. I think he needs
> mental health counceling. Rather than just calling for them to 
> pull the plug on his account (he could always get access through
> another provider anyway), I think they should make his continued
> access conditional on his getting ongoing treatment at the campus
> mental health clinic. Perhaps that carrot would motivate him to get the
> treatment that he clearly needs.

  I do not have a complete collection of Barry Merriman posts where he
responds always with words to the effect that I am "mentally ill" and
need to go to a hospital. I have perhaps 5 of those posts saved but
figure that posts are archived somewhere. And his attack on me is a
systematic attack. Some people get there jollies by flinging darts at
whom they pick to victimize. And it seems that no rational plea on my
part stops Barry.  A systematic stalking 

  I ask for Barry to send me 500 bucks in order to cover the cost of a
complete physical and mental checkup at the local hospital and I will
post the results. I am calling your bluff Barry. Americans know a fair
game when they see one. And if your concern over my mental health is
sincere then send the money. Don't post another attack on my mental
health if you are not genuinely concerned about my health.

  Hopefully some civil libertarian is reading this post and can direct
me. What is my legal actions at this point should Barry continue his
"mental health attacks on me worldwide " ?

  Can I go to the hospital and have the checkup and just mail the bill
to his organization since he works for the govt? Or to his university
affiliation? Being a govt employee and systematically attacking my
character,are govt employees by law put themselves into a legal
contract by posting such smear on my character? The attacking of a
private citizen, me, does not his systematic attacks constitute  a
legal contract for him to pay for such a check-up he so insists upon?

    Willingness to " accept and pay" for what he is posting.  Thus, by
my showing his posts to the local hospital, the checkup and bill
automatically sent to his organization? Mind you I am not talking about
one or two posts but approaching 50

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


  Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  Has
anyone been sued for systematic attack on the Internet yet? And if any
law firm out there in California interested in this case of mine,
please contact me. For if there is no legal precedence, and a law firm
sees enough money in my case. I will be more than happy to take a
sabbatical from Dartmouth in order to execute such a lawsuit. People
whose intent is to victimize, and delight in it, need to see some
action . .
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 /   /  Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Lawsuit on Barry Merriman, UCSD, UCLA dept,looking for CA
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:34:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It may very well be that Archimedes is not mentally ill but merely stupid.
After all half (actually a bit more) of the population have IQ <= 100.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug  2 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
