1995.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 02:11:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3us74h$s78@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <DBywqn.C69@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
>writes:

>>   Child-like individuals like Mr. Schultz -- who hide in wait
>> as trolls (quite a projection on his part)  and post to interrupt
>> discussion, science, and communications --
>>  need never concern themselves with the truth apparently.  

Great verbage!  

>Hmm...as long as we are making character judgements: I seem
>to recall several individuals in this forum who repeatedly
>refer to all DOE scientists as wellfare cheats, stealing
>the tax payers money, as part of an enormous scam, not
>competent to even work as garbage collectors, and also
>that hot fusion is an utter failure, has not even the possibility
>of success, has made no progress whatsoever, has contributed
>nothing worthwhile at all, ect, etc.

May I repent?   Okay, let me modify my previous and possible 
future rantings brought on by the word "tokamak".  The DoE 
and it's funded outposts has contributed enormously costly
and worthwhile, to the short term, efforts and even results, 
not to leave out massive structures, which, nevertheless, 
cost the American taxpayers of the present and future, a 
significantly greater debt burden.  They are remembering
this effort/$ even now just a few jaunts from my humble 
abode.   

>So, what judgment do you render about the progenitors of 
>those statements? The product of rational, reasonable,
>adult minds?

Well Barry, No one said we couldn't be a bit reactive to gross
waste.                          :-)

Just jealous, but I think it's more.   The numbers are there,
dear friend.  

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

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  3:690/660
 /  solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: 3:690/660
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solar/fusion
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 01:45:23 +0800
Organization: The Perth Omen. Western Australia's longest running BBS

 Pa> : :                                             We have a perfectly
 Pa> : : good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy than
 Pa> : : we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than

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

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

 Pa> The *only* long term alternatives are solar
 Pa> or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
 Pa> fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using too
 Pa> much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel
 Pa> is solar. It is not a question of converting to solar power but rather
 Pa> of using solar in a way that is not environmentally damaging and
 Pa> is sustainable.

Ho ho, ho, ho, he, hee, hee, whoooeeee

Well, now that  I've gotten that out of my system, let's look at some
facts. Better yet, let's look at some physics. Point, The energy usage
here in Western Australia is about 520 petajoules p.a. for a pop. of
1.6e6. And it isn't that cold here either!

Assume the whole world wants to use energy at the same rate. After all,
no one wants to see the people in Ethiopia starving, or the people in
Bangladesh being wiped out by a cyclone every few years. That would
suggest that to supply that energy would require something like 250,000
sq km of collector minimum, and more like 1.5e6 sq km after taking into
account pv efficiency.

520e15 J/yr  /  1.6e6 people = 3.25e11 J/person/year (W.A.)
3.25e11 J/per/yr  * 5.5e9 people/world = 1.7875e21 J/yr/world
1.7875e21 J/yr/world / 3.6e6 J/kw-hr = 4.965e14 kw-hr/yr/world
4.965e14 kw-hr/yr/world / 365 days/yr = 1.3698e12 kw-hr/day/world
1.3698e12 kw-hr/day/world / 5 kw-hr/day/m2 = 2.73972e11 m2/world
2.7397e11 m2 / 1e6 m2/km2 = 2.739e5 km2, i.e., about 500x500 km

The figure of 5 kw-hr/day/m2 is the measured solar insolation. Now, take
into account that solar pv's are only, say, 15 % efficient, and the
500x500 sq km blows out to 1,500,000 sq km, i.e., 1,200 x 1,200 km
square.

(would someone please check!)

Now I have no quibble with the size of the collector. The thing that
worries me most of all is that those collectors, at least the pv kind,
are only 10-15 percent efficient So where does the other 85-90 percent
of the energy go? Yessireee. Right out into the ol' atmosphere, and by
golly, isn't it going to contribute to the ol' global warming problem?
You betcha.

Look to the future. Right now world energy is growing at the rate of 7 %
p.a. but that is because the world is trying to do something about
poverty. (Well, at least we like to think so). But the underlying growth
is still greater that 2 percent p.a., (2.6 % in W.A. from 90/91 to 91/92
to be precise) partly because of pop growth, partly because of
underlying 'economic growth', suggesting double the energy in 27 years.
That means that in 27 years we will have to have something like
500,000 sq kilometers of collector about the place. And double again in
54 years or so.

Frankly I don't hold much faith in improving the efficiency of
collectors. Sure, they can be improved, but can they be improved, and
installed, before time runs out.

Now let's look at some physics. In 1883 Christiansen worked out some
laws of radiative heat transfer, and concluded that the ambient temp is
going to be dependent not only on the emission of heat, which the
greenies (and I say it in the kindest way, I like trees) are trying to
prevent from decreasing, and thus leading to global warming, BUT ALSO ON
THE ABSORPTION OF ENERGY.

So, throw a few hundred thousand sq kms of collector about the place,
and is absorption going to increase. Yes sir. Not only that, but imagine
the effect on the local climate of such huge collectors in such a few
locations, throwing out all that heat. Not only that, but the collectors
are postulated to be located in deserts, which currently have a very
low absorption - that's why it gets so cold at night in deserts. So,
over a large area it is proposed to increase the absorption from, oh,
say 10-20 percent, to , oh, say, >95 percent.

Where do we go from here. You know the laws of entropy. everything runs
down. You know what happens to all kinetic energy, it eventually gets
dissipated as heat. You can run as fast and as long as you want, but you
can't hide.

And by the way, domestic usage should include the energy it takes to
nake the bricks, and the steel, and the concrete. And let's not forget
the energy it takes to get the family bus down the assembly line, never
mind moving down the road.

And let's not forget the other creatures either. People say that the
world can support 15 billions. Well, maybe it can. But have you ever
heard anyone say it can support 15 billions and all of the infinite
variety of other species, yes, even the mossies, that make this place
worth living?

In brief, I suggest that people are going to have to learn a little self
restraint. A little less bonking would go a long way to solving the
energy problem. Otherwise homo sapiens, like all other biological
specimens will go the same way as their counterparts, excess pop,
disease, starvation, and death. Sorry to be so depressing.

Do you know what I think is the most depressing part. That homo sapiens
won't learn until the trumpet blows.

George Blahusiak           -   -       e-mail: George@Omen.com.au
704/32 Dumond Street       @   @       Tel: 011-61-9-458-9484
Bentley, W.A., 6102          .         Fax:        "
Australia                  \___/


cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 2 Aug 1995 10:56:44 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

Tom:
>>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.

Dick:
>How does one represent a scream of despair in ASCII?

I beleive it goes:

*Kerplunk* Welcome to my killfile

M. (wishing my name were Harry)








-- 
.sig test: nearing completion.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: ierof@brave4.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 2 Aug 1995 12:36:19 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <3vf5os$91r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>In <3uxndg$mvk@newsbf02.news.aol.com> flmayer@aol.com (FLMAYER) writes: 
>>
>>In article <3v9l27$u4t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>>> Simple, escalate the hate posts, and I escalate the condemnations to
>>>hell, Styx that is
>>
>>========
>>
>>> I cannot believe that a real physics person can spend
>>> so much time on Internet drivelling like a rabid dog with "hatred".
>>
>>You don't see a contradiction between this last sentence and condemning
>>a bunch of people to mythical hells?
>>
>>Frank Mayer
>
>I note that you object to Plutonium 
>"condemning a bunch of people to mythical hells".
>
>As I occasionly like to tell some people "where to go",
>and I want to do it right,
>and as you seem to be an expert in this subject,
>would you please tell me the correct way to do this?
>
>Would it be okay, if I simply told them to "go to Hell"?
>
>
>

And who asked you? Can't you read the attribution lines?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:20:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vkcd5$k1l@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC432691AB03416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 04:32:17 GMT
>
>In article <DCKL24.CAs@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
In article <3vghac$bem@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>Even a plasmak is going to need to recirculate some power 
> for compression!

Absolutely correct.  However, the amount of recirculating power
must be considered along with the machine's over-all power
conversion efficiency.  This is covered in the _Fusion_ edited
by Teller, especially the last chapter by John Dawson (UCLA).  
Since we can convert  95% of the burned fuel to electric power,
most of the power used in recirculation is recovered. That
certainly is not the case with a tokamak which may chunk out
electric power with a 20 to 35% efficiency.  I'm not talking
pie in the sky science numbers, here.   
 
>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.

Coil power, cooling power, beam or rf heating power, vacuum 
machinary, tritium recover, is all that I can think of off hand
that's not counted in scientific breakeven.  That's why I've
been more than a bit contemptuous of such numbers.  They
do not give a true picture for comparison between various 
machine approaches, which is more then a bit of a cheat, since
it's publically funded and the congress is deprived of a valid
basis for making important decisions for those funds this
beast consumes. 

>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.  

This is only true for a machine which can't burn, and likely
ITER also won't burn.  But for a machine that burns, this is
a real issue, and it can't be passed off so flippantly.  

However, for another point, and there are others, you specifically
mentioned more aggressive auxilliary heating.  My understanding
is that unless you are speaking of ATC then you are up a creek,
since you will drive plasma heating (and conductivity which helps)
but also plasma pressurization which is disruptive since there is
no simutaneous increase in confining field strength.  Basically
what happens is that tranport (energy loss from the plasma) simply 
ramps up to meet the increased plasma heat input, so you don't
get anywhere.  

> 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.

Why because it doesn't burn or doesn't radiate!?!?   Neat trick
if you can conjure it.  

>>To be clear that is 10 billion dollars "MORE" === "additional".  

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

More than the costs for the pre-ehanced size "current ITER." 

>>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.

Has nothing to do with recent problems (or does it?) with the 
poioidal field coil system.  This has to do with the maximum
pressure that can be safely brought to bear on the plasma.  If
the TFC are circular, the coils are stronger, and if K-B shaped 
they are weaker while the torque is greater, so maximum "circular"
level field strengths can't be used.   For example, what field
pressure  (in atm or bar) are the TPAX coils compared to the ITER 
coils?     Iter runs arond 1.0 Kilobar ... correct?  
So is that the case for TPX or is it more like 0.5 Kb.  

>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?

But, Bob, these fields aren't nearly as large as ITER plans to
use.  What were you going to build out there, a POWDERPUFF? 
We expect to run applied up to 20kb with center toroidal pressures
of 150-200 kb.  

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

Hey, I like a good lean curvatious body anytime.  Our PLASMAK(tm)
topology has a shaped cross-section.  Let's get with the program.   
Where have you been?  

Unfortunately, the stresses won't allow your shaped program to be
utilized since the torques eat your choosen one's over all structural 
strength alive.  Too Bad, but them's the breaks.   A Powder puff.   
Huge PP.   

>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?

Certainly, I have an argument.  if you peak density, it's only because
you apply your availible coil pressure to a smaller cross-section.
You do not have a magic way of increasing pressure, your beast is
pressure limited due to the use of physical solid state magnet coils.  
So, you can get a higher density and temperature (Higher pressure) by
concentrating the product T*n on axis.  BUT this makes it more
unstable to kinking, and therefore requires a stiffer toroidal field
which you are freshly without.  You are trying to live within
the constraints of a flawed pressure box.  You slide one way or
the other way along the hyperbola, but you are not making a silly
millimeter in the direction of T*n*t product.  So you have a higher
n*T but you lose on tau, since you're kink or disruption prone.    

Or was this also too vague?  

>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.

I just thought their lastest propaganda rubbed off on you, and you 
then are just spreading the true word as you know it to be. 

Explain Alpa channeling, maybe I'm missing something. 

>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.  

I resent (huff huff) your accusing me of politics, since, the well 
known lobby team from Princeton is likely responsible for keeping
you chaps in the chips, while at the same time ripping most
of the competition to shreds.  I'm likely the only exception,
(probably because of my unwitting charm, grace, and poetry --   
Or HaHaHaHa .. .  a VCR!!! )

Is it political for me to have a more advanced form or the
fundamental Stellarator-tokamak-spheromak-PLASMAK(tm) topology?
Hey, I'm just trying to bend some minds, the way I bend
copper plate.  I figure fusion requires pressure, so what's
the big deal (apolitical) secret in my pushing the use of more 
efficient forms of generating pressurized magnetically 
insulated plasmas?                    

>Keep in mind that the
>original sentence was part of a *private email* and had nothing
>to do with Congress, anyway.

>>Not only that, but the ST, 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.

Actually, I've heard this issue addressed on its own merits before
any mention of neutrons.  

>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.

We think so, but in a much more sensible embodiment called the
PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  Great the way all your fixes point
in this direction (forward) torward the "apex", the OMEGA of 
evolution  of toroidal devices to PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasma 
development.  

>>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?

Golly Bob, I was trying to keep at the level of the comment I was
responding too.  Basically, if you are going to employ Shear, then 
it should be down in a device in which shear is a natural part
of the topology.  That way you don't have to "impose" it on the
machine.  To continue the shear to the edge and reverse it is much
easier as was found in the Z devices at Los Alamos.  But for
a tokamak???  It's like putting teats on a bull.   

>> 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 your
>diagnostics yet?  

Oh, I think we will manage.  PPPL may not have another Furth,
but there are others that do.  But you are correct, right
now we haven't produced a burn or even a strong compression.  
Maybe a couple of years.  Maybe a year and a half. ..Things
seem to be improving ... kind of a different direction for
us.  For so long there was little movement, but that's not
the dazzling success of your tokamak program is it.  They
promised fusion by now and by golly we have it ah.. er another
sounder promise for fusion .. more substantial, a larger
more cooperative global promise .. for  ahh  whatwas that 
I started to say??

As far as the VCR diagnosic goes .. are we past that??  
Actually not, they are very useful, and we are even rigging 
them to take X-ray images of the currents within.  I guess you
chaps are beyond the VCR camera level.  I suppose, as long as
we form and fly these things to and into compression chambers, 
we will be watching with a VCR.  Ta Da!  Do you have independent
(no feeds or attachments) plasmoids that are that long lasting 
so as to see them intact frame after frame?   Well... there
you go, A VCR would be useless for your purposes.   

But, now that you mention it Bob, could you send me list of 
equipment that you think we could use to make more elaborate
diagnostic measurements than the calorimetry, X-ray imaging,
and line time profile, and we only have the most crude of 
gratings for simple spectral shots. and as far as optical 
filters, we have a use for line spectral filters such as UV 
nitrogen etc.    Anything you can put our name and address
on would be appreciated.  

We hear that most of the publically money purchased instruments 
will be coming available at PPPL.  We have just set up a non-profit 
corporation, Neoteric Research, which is devoted to the scientific 
examination of these objects and their behavior for use in 
educational programs.  Contributions of equipment that will 
be coming available at PPPL will be most appreciated and well 
utilized.  

I hope that laugh didn't strain your throat.  It's a good thing
we aren't even considered to be a competition with your great
Laboratory, lest it would withhold valued and needed diagnostic
as well as a bevy of energy storage, charging units, fast switches 
and gas handling and apparatus.  

> 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 think charge exchange is only important when plasma and
neutrals are at significantly different temperatures.  Otherwise,
the ionization carries the bulk of the energy and that remains
trapped by the normal field (speaking of the Mantle).  In this
case charge exchange is energy conserving.  Such is clearly not
the case when we consider the crap from a solid vacuum wall which
speeds unimpeded by vacuum magnetic fields straight into the outer
thermonuclear tokamak plasma fuel surface, where it ionizes and
is trapped, instantaneously promoted to radiator-general.   

As for the Kernel plasma in a PMK, well, it is tucked safely within
its coccoon of outer dense plasma shell and surrounding vacuum
magnetic field.  Here only an ionized particle would be available
to poison the hot plasma surface, and it is kept at bay by the
super strong clean vacuum field.  

Besides.. .if it would supposed to work as you say then ...???  
Why doesn't this happen in a turbulent wind to ball lightning.  
These things were seen to have been produced by tornadic lightning
which spawned Ball lightnings, which once clear of the tornado
seemed as ordinary ball lightning.   They are see to pop out of
the ocean produced by sub surface volcanic electrified dust vents. 

Also, candles burn with low power, yet burn on and on even
though such cooling mechanism could steal the heat from them.
In fact, convection is even more powerful cooling mechanism, yet 
the flame burns on.   Your remarks are likely capricious and 
without much serious consideration as to the pressure shortening 
of mean-free-path, laminar effects (due to insulation at higher 
pressures) and the like.   

>(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?)

Don't you mean you would be more comfortable with the 
only way you know that plasmas are compressed by obsolete
laboratory vacuum plasma technology? 

Besides.. .
It's not stable to tilting mode.  You should know that!
Also, one can only reach a tiny fraction of the pressure 
one can reach with simple fluid pressure compression.  
Also it's cheaper, and can be augmented with a profile 
burn using simplex.  and so on and so on.. .

Bob, your tok's a creaker!
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / 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: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 02:52:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>...(5) There was a damage to me which for me
>would be simple to prove. I was reserved space in a physics journal and
>my submission was declined. It was declined because of attacks at me
>from the Internet. How much is a published article on science worth to
>a professional, it is hard to put a price. So if I meet Barry in court
>it will not be for hundreds but thousands

	With this, you get into more interesting legal issues.  There is
(under California law and, no doubt, elsewhere) a cause of action entitled
"interference with contract" or "interference with prospective economic
advantage."  The basic idea is that if A damages B by words or actions
concerning B directed at C that disrupts B's relationship with C, B can
sue A for the damages caused.  The theory had its heyday before labor
organizing was legal and regulated and was used by employers against
strikers for actions that drove customers away.  It is now used primarily
by businesses in litigation against one another; for example, when one
professional "steals" another's client.  It is very complex and there are
"defenses" based on privileges to compete and comment that, while not
based on a constitutional right of free speech, derive from similar
policies.  I am sure that the issues presented by your case would be novel
and that a lot of legal arguments could be made on both sides.  I suspect,
however, that a court would rule that the nature of the Usenet (its free
flow of ideas and invective) prevents an action for interference based
solely on postings thereto. 

	The chief practical problem with any action you might have against
Prof. (Mr.?) Merriman is that your prospective damages (even in the
thousands of dollars) are too low to entice a lawyer to take the case on a
contingent-fee basis (where he or she gets paid a percentage of what is
collected from the defendant).  Most lawyers are expensive.  It is
conceivable that there might be a lawyer with an interest in The Internet
or free-speech issues who would be willing to take the case for free.  My
impression, however, is that most lawyers willing to donate their time for
a case of this nature would be on the other side (advancing the idea that
anyone can say anything on The Internet without fear of a lawsuit). 

	I must also state that I am not in a position to represent you.

	Just remember, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
gander.  Your words directed at Prof. (Mr.?  Dr.?) Merriman's institution 
might conceivably cause him damage.  Even if he couldn't collect a 
judgment against you, he could, if he were riled up and willing to pay 
enough (or some institution supported him) make trouble for you.  

	
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 2 Aug 1995 14:34:43 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK


Bronis said, concerning Tom's equations:

>>>Nope.  I agree with all of the above  (or at least the first two, I'd
>>>have to double-check the math on number 3, I'm assuming you have it
>>>right, and if you have made a minor typographical error it probably
>>>doesn't matter because there is some similar relationship anyway.

Then I said:

>>Ergo, E = M x C**3
>>[well, its something like that anyway. Close enough. Few orders of magnitude, I
>>can handle that...]
>>*shakes head in despair*

Then Tom said:

>Apparently you don't know that "G" has the dimensions of
>distance^3 / ( mass *  time^2 )
>
>Learn dimensional analysis and you won't despair so.

Tom, before you get too upset over my 'flaming' you, I'd just like to point
out that my despair was over the "trivial typographical errors that don't
really matter" such as the difference between 'squared' and 'cubed', or the
difference between F=mA and F=m+A. My point (I can't beleive I have to explain
this) is that these errors _do_ really matter, because one is _right_ and the
other is _wrong_. It was Bronis I was 'flaming' if it _was_ a flame: if you
really want comment on your stuff, Tom, you should have read on:

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

Your response to this was:

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

If you can demonstrate any of your three assertions (i.e. that space and/or
mass are mind-created, unneeded, or distorted concepts), I'll be very impressed
- note that your existing 'cycles' stuff is _not_ a suitable demonstration.

What you have done, if accurate (I'm not qualified to judge), is a very clever
translation: It deserves the same congratulations that are given to a kid the
first time he writes in joined-up handwriting, or to a translator who preserves
the sense of a poem in a different language (incidental applause to the
translator for 'Cyrano'). You've applied the rules in a new way. Well done.

But you go on to say that your new way of expressing the same old things really
means that the 'old' ways of expressing things were distortions and highly
misleading: this _may_ be so, but it would have to be _proved_ to be so. You
may be saying "Bonjour!" instead of "Good day!", but that doesn't prove that
"good day!" is _not_ a greeting. Your playing around with units in physics may
have utility, but it is just a different way of saying ther same thing - the
underlying meaning is unchanged.

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

You have failed to understand my reasoning at all:
My point is, you insist that because you say "rouge" instead of "red", the
light is therefore of different wavelength. French is no more valid that
english in describing an object, just as "kilograms" are no more valid than
"seconds" in describing its properties.

>Why write the book for color blind people?

The easy way to convince a colour-blind person that they _are_ limited in
perception is to demonstrate the utility of your extended colour vision -
seeing those hidden numbers in the dot patterns or whatever.

So, if your time-based perception of the world is superior to mine, fenced in
as it is by the unnecessary notions like locality, mass, distance, potential
etc., all you've got to do is demonstrate utility: a testable prediction, or a
description that follows logically in 'cycles' but is near-impossible to
express in my limited vocab of modern physics. Note that in my first comment I
didn't question that your translation might have merit in spotting
relationships or describing systems...

M.

-- 
.sig test: nearing completion.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Frank Pitt /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 95 13:14:41 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <3vl3ou$n1c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:

>   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.

You have a good name ?  

If it was such a good name why do ya keep changing it ?

Boom, Boom! Thenk yew, Thenk yew.

Frankly it would be easy to show that _you've_ done far more harm to
any good name or social well-being you might have with your own posts.

And if you think Barry was extreme you obviously haven't been the 
recipient of any real flames in the past. Remind me to get some people 
to send you a few for your education, purely for research purposes
of course.

BTW, I'm quite happy to agree with Barry that you need some form of 
therapy, if only to deal with your egotism, bigotry, and paranoia, 
all of which your posts exhibit in abundance.

Oh, if you want to try and sue _me_, consider, the _first_ thing you'll
have to do is prove who sent this post. That's really not very easy.

Secondly, you'll have to prove you're a real person, and not just one 
of Dartmouth's souped-up "Eliza" programs.

Frankie


	    
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Mike Baker /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu (Mike Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 14:06:36 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; College of Engineering

In article <DCn9Mt.MGy@midway.uchicago.edu> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>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.
>


	You should think of this as cost shifting.  The public is
	paying this cost today.  But it allows fossil fuels to have
        to have an unfair cost advantage over other fuels.  Someone
	with a better economics background than me would likely argue
	that the increased energy costs would be offset by the reduction
	in health care costs, environmental costs, lost wages etc....
	that can be tied to the burning of fossil fuels.  By forcing 
	them to pay these costs it evens the playing field a little.


-- 
===============================================================================
		Michael Baker ... baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu
===============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbaker cudfnMike cudlnBaker cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Bob Casanova /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 16:33:18 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <1995Aug1.184537.9374@nosc.mil> north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) writes:
>From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
>Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 18:45:37 GMT

>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.

Or even better, use Larry Niven's idea. Seal the waste in glass bricks, pile 
the bricks in the center of a 1-square-mile fenced area in a remote location 
(he suggested the desert), and put signs on the fence: "If You Cross This 
Fence You Will Die". This way, when we discover a use for the waste, it'll be 
available. Remember, the volatile fractions of crude oil were once burned as 
waste.


>Mark




















Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Bruce Appleby /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: bappleby@world.std.com (Bruce W Appleby)
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: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:18:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

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

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

[snip]
>>  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.
[snip] 

Apologies to Ben Tilly for so drastically snipping his otherwise 
reasonable post.

Following are selections from Archie's response to Ben Tilly's post:

[snip]
>  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.
[snip]
>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. 
[snip]
>  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.

Does freedom of speech allow this?  Sadly it does.

Lest anyone think that there is any fact behind Archie's shameful and 
abusive attack on a "certain religion" there is a piece on the subject of 
who gets credit for Special Relativity in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume 
17 Number 1) of The Mathematical Intelligencer.  It is written by Jeremy 
Gray in the "Years Ago" column (page 65).

I have generally avoided posting to Archie's threads, but was driven by 
two motives: first, to go on record in the strongest possible terms 
against the psychotic insinuation of race into this newsgroup; second to 
provide a thoughtful reference to the underlying priority dispute for 
those who might otherwise think that where there's smoke, there's fire.

BTB Gray's article is pretty convincing by itself and is backed up by 
references, not that Archie will believe anything from the "math 
establishment".

Bruce Appleby
bappleby@world.std.com


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbappleby cudfnBruce cudlnAppleby cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / 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: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:51:17 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com> writes:

>In article <1995Aug1.184537.9374@nosc.mil> north@nosc.mil wrote:

>> 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.

>Unless you realize that subduction takes tens of thousands of years to
>travel even a single mile, that the sediments in which the waste would
>be placed are often scraped off, not subducted, and that subduction
>zones often have "mud volcanoes" in this melange.  Just what we want,
>the dissolution products of vitrified waste being mixed in with a zone
>where fluids will be erupting.

Sorry. I meant to say a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean.
Before you ask: the diffusion time for something down several miles in
the ocean is of the order of thousands of years.

Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it, Hans Bethe worked it all
out about 30 years ago. He gave a colloquium at U of Ill in the early
'70s in which he spelled out all the details. I'm sure there must
be a paper on it somewhere. It's a very nice solution to the problem.

Mark














cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Hauke Reddmann /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 2 Aug 1995 08:55:30 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

I can only speak for myself:
If Archie would call ME names (or whatever can be ignored),
I would ignore. I hold the ideal "freedom of speech" very
high and that's the price you pay. Hell, if I had fragged
everyone who insulted me or made racial statements when I
stood beneath, I would already be in the slammer for
mass murder.
--
Hauke Reddmann   fc3a501@rzaixsrv2.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenfc3a501 cudfnHauke cudlnReddmann cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 06:53:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vkaee$jqb@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC4324F21A02416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 04:25:22 GMT
>
>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.

.. . snip

>You're saying all we need is roughly a quadrupling of CPU power?

>Or are we brainpower-limited and not CPU-power limited?

I  *** *    LOVE   IT    * ****   Dawn!

I should say that our noodles likely have the bio-mass, but it's
the exercise thereof and follow through that may be lacking.  

notice the agonied use of "our". 
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 31 Jul 1995 04:14:30 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

rogersda@direct.ca (david rogers) wrote:
>Non Combustion Energy Source is the next Revolution of mankind.
>
>Breaking chemical bonds has been and still is our primary source of
>energy. Chicago's heat wave and the mid-west's halving it's normal
>wheat production are a direct cause and effect of out species use
>of combustible energy and it's associated CO2 + other emmissions.
>
>Wars and revolutions have made major changes with our history but NON
>compare with that technology has.
>
>In my opinion our time is very limited to produce the goods for a 
>non combutible energy source and you people conducting research
>in physics hold a major key.
>
>New Gas Turbines will be introduced next year in N. America which
will be 10-15% more efficient and Dams will no
>longer compete on price. I did the calculation and switching from
>Dams to Natural Gas Turbines to generate electricity wil DOUBLE CO2
>emissions in BC alone.
>
>It became so obvious to me NOn-Combustible energy production is
>perhaps the key to our very survival. The new energy source needs be
>economic, safe, non-polluting and immediate ( i.e. like striking
>a match ).
>
>Is there someone out there who can solve this?
>

Sure thing. I have an idea that will save the world!
Just replace all fossil fuel power stations with a combination of
ordinary nuclear reactors and breeder reactors. The technology is proven and is
cost competative with fossil fuel power stations (apart from the latest
combined
cycle gas turbines). Once employed in the breeder mode, the Earths Uranium
resources are sufficient to last indefinately. No no nasty C02 emissions from
these devices. They produce a relatively small amount of waste each year (about
a tonne I think) albeit rather dangerous. Never mind, just dig a few holes in 
the ground and bury it the way the original Uranium was in the first place.


I can't think why no other person interested in the environment has not thought
of this before.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 18:33:24 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1995Aug2.175117.24937@nosc.mil>, north@nosc.mil (Mark H.
North) wrote:

> Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com> writes:
> 
> >In article <1995Aug1.184537.9374@nosc.mil> north@nosc.mil wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> >Unless you realize that subduction takes tens of thousands of years to
> >travel even a single mile, that the sediments in which the waste would
> >be placed are often scraped off, not subducted, and that subduction
> >zones often have "mud volcanoes" in this melange.  Just what we want,
> >the dissolution products of vitrified waste being mixed in with a zone
> >where fluids will be erupting.
> 
> Sorry. I meant to say a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean.
> Before you ask: the diffusion time for something down several miles in
> the ocean is of the order of thousands of years.
> 
> Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it, Hans Bethe worked it all
> out about 30 years ago. He gave a colloquium at U of Ill in the early
> '70s in which he spelled out all the details. I'm sure there must
> be a paper on it somewhere. It's a very nice solution to the problem.
> 

Well, I suppose I could contact Dr. Bethe at Cornell, but it'd be a good
bit easier if you or someone on this group might post a reference.  I'd be
mightily interested in seeing that paper.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 2 Aug 1995 16:29:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It seems to me that now the development of the Marshall Dudley hypothesis
is complete. I wish to receive credit for my earlier postings in which I
brought up the possible involvement of the electron i.e. electron capture
and subsequent beta decay. Some other contributors may also wish to
receive credit so it will be called the Dudley-Szakaly-.... theory or for
a more compact name the Fusion Group theory. The Fusion Group would be us
with Marshall as the leader who started this whole snowball.

What Marshall writes in his previous message is totally feasible, I don't
see any holes in it. It is logical for the electron to be involved in the
reaction since it is right there. 

If we recall muon catalized fusion, the role of the muon is to orbit the D
nucleus at such close range that the effects of the electric charge are
shielded. This allows close approach of two D atoms and fusion happens.
Subsequently the muon is emitted and goes on to catalize other reactions
until it decays. 

The electron or electrons in the outer shell orbit the Palladium ion some
of the time and they orbit the D some of the time because the D is
embedded in the outer shell of the much larger Palladium ion. If electron
capture occurs, that neutralizes one of the D momentarily thus eliminating
any repulsive force between the two of them. If the two fuse, the
resulting He4* excited state already starts out with a deficit of 0.782
MeV so instead of 23.85 MeV it will have an energy surplus of 23.07 MeV.
If the electron is subsequently ejected in beta decay together with an
antineutrino they could easily carry off 2.47 MeV which makes breakup of
the He4* impossible. If the electron capture seems inprobable to some, we
could just say that the electron was caught in the middle and all this
happened as a three body reaction. The emitted electron would have a
continouos spectrum due to the antineutrino created. This electron would
collide with the lattice and deliver its energy as heat. Most of the
gammas emitted by the still excited nucleus would be absorbed by the sea
of free floating electrons and eventually would also be delivered as heat.

While I am really happy about having gotten so far with this theory, I
would like to know more about how to build an actual reactor. I repeat
some questions I had earlier:

- Which metals are best and why? (Palladium, Titanium, Nickel ???)
- Why electrolytic process, why not just pump the D into the metal?
- Will the D escape if some surface of the metal is exposed?
- Should Litium be used and what role might it play?
- How to achive maximum packing and how much packing do we need?

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Johan Wevers /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 21:08:28 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

Paul Budnik <paul@mtnmath.com> wrote:

>With wide spread use prices will fall much more rapidly

I agree with this.

>and efficiencies will increase significantly.

But I doubt this. Solar panels are expensive because it is difficult to
make them. The cheaper ones (they look blue with a lot of structure
observable on the surface) use poorly crystalized Si, which is a bit
less efficient but much cheaper. The efficiency of solar cells is very
low and the principle does not alow for a fundamental increase, unless, of
course, someone would use a completely different process like photosynthesis
on a technical basis.

>It is only a matter of time and thinking with a little common sense.

If solar power becomes cheaper than other sources, people will certainly
use it. It must be only a matter of time before it is cheaper than
fossil fuels but I think this time could very well be some centuries.

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / 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: 2 Aug 1995 23:49:30 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vl3ou$n1c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   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

  Mr. Merriman emailed me today saying that he would like to keep the
costs under 200 bucks. But he had several conditionals. He wanted to be
able to talk to the doctor before, . .  and after the checkup.   And,  
he wanted me to agree that I would discuss my theories and math to the 
 doctor.
  Imagine all of that,  really hard for me to imagine.

  I emailed back " Let's meet in court"

  It appears to me that some very smart persons have talked to Mr.
Merriman about "systematically and frequently accusing people publicly
as "mentally ill" is just not proper and common decency (maybe against
the law)"

  If some smart person has been talking to Mr. Merriman it seems that
he still has doubts that he did anything wrong

  I therefore feel it necessary to put a time limit on the acceptance
of a money order in the amount of 500 bucks as of 3 Sept 93. Any amount
less than that I will shred.

  I prefer to settle this in court, and I am looking for the email
address of the lawyers who defended some European physicist. A proven
winner and they know already the course to take. In my circumstance
there was considerable damage. A physics journal reserved space and
later declined due to the Internet posts calling me "mentally insane"
with organizations as follows

Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

  Or, if any other legal firm wishes to take this on, please email me.
It is good that the Internet gets a clean-up. And perhaps one day we
will have a Judge Woopner Internet Court Newsgroup with an Honorable
Judge preceding? Who knows?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / 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: 2 Aug 1995 23:54:06 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3vp2ua$8t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I therefore feel it necessary to put a time limit on the acceptance
> of a money order in the amount of 500 bucks as of 3 Sept 93. Any amount
> less than that I will shred.

  Sorry, 3 Sept 95  (time goes by too fast)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / John Sidles /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: sidles@u.washington.edu (John Sidles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 2 Aug 1995 22:52:17 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Archimedes reminds me a bit of the town drunk "Boggs" in
Mark Twain's book "Huckleberry Finn."  You will recall that
the abusive but harmless Boggs is murdered by the powerful
Colonel Sherburne, whom Boggs has offended.  Sherburne
escapes punishment for his crime.

I wonder if those people who would persecute Archimedes
consider Colonel Sherburne a role model?  After all,
Sherburne's execution of the defenseless Boggs likely *did*
improve the civility of the town.

Mr. Plutonium's healing may be beyond us at present; still
we may hope for his eventual recovery, and look forward to
a day when he will become a more responsible (if, alas,
less colorful) citizen of the net.  Wouldn't it be best if
in that future time Mr. Plutonium remembers being treated
kindly in this difficult stage of his life?

PS: No flames please in case I have misspelled "Sherburne"
    Just correct it in your excerpts, please.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensidles cudfnJohn cudlnSidles cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Joshua Levy /  Re: What's up with P&F ?
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's up with P&F ?
Date: 2 Aug 1995 17:18:55 -0700
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

Someone wrote:
>>>Does anyone know what is going on with Pon's and F.? Last
>>>rumor we heard---from an evil skeptical source---was that 
>>>they were in essence abandoning their cold fusion work.
>>>Given that their public presentation history consists
>>>of a big press conference, an initial provocative but 
>>>sketchy paper, and then a long slow series of retractions
>>>of nuclear signatures (gamma's, neutrons, He4), its hard
>
>>Well, they did that once. Not much of a statistic really. 

No.  Pons has done this twice before.  Read TAUBES book on Cold
Fusion for details.  The forshadowing is errie. 

Joshua Levy <joshua@centerlin.com> No matter what the header says,
                                   I don't work for Veritas any more.
                                   (All you Latin speaking CF boosters
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Charles E /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: "Charles E. Reese" <reese@chem.duke.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 3 Aug 1995 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers) wrote:
>
> Paul Budnik <paul@mtnmath.com> wrote:
> 
> >With wide spread use prices will fall much more rapidly
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> >and efficiencies will increase significantly.
> 
> But I doubt this. Solar panels are expensive because it is difficult to
> make them. The cheaper ones (they look blue with a lot of structure
> observable on the surface) use poorly crystalized Si, which is a bit
> less efficient but much cheaper. The efficiency of solar cells is very
> low and the principle does not alow for a fundamental increase, unless, of
> course, someone would use a completely different process like photosynthesis
> on a technical basis.
> 
Difficult is a relative term, it is very difficult to make color film but color
film is cheap because a lot of it is made.  The process for making solor cells
will also be (relativly) cheap when comparable quantities are being made.  There
was a Scientific American article about solar cells a couple of years ago
with a chart showing the projected prices over a couple of decades.  It would
be interesting to see if they were on target. (Hint for SA archivers).
As far as efficiencies go solar cells are much much more efficient then photosynthesis.

Charlie Reese

> 
> --
> ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
> johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
> Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenreese cudfnCharles cudlnE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 03 Aug 1995 00:23:24 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <dougDCLsIK.FGo@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes:

 > 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).

   I'm one of that some, but I certainly wouldn't lump fission and
petroleum together.  The pollution problems from petroleum sources
depends both on the type of feedstock and the combustion mechanism.
The only serious pollutants from burning sweet crude to fire a boiler
are thermal emissions and CO2.  (Not that CO2 can be ignored.) The
pollution from burning gasoline refined from high-sulpher stock in
automobiles is worse than some low-sulphur coal-fired power plants.  I
saw a TV program over the weekend (on Discovery, discussing gas
turbine powered cars) where one enthusiast put it: "If you breathe the
exhaust from an internal combustion engine you'll be dead in about
four minutes.  Imagine what all that exhaust is doing to our cities.")

  > 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.

   Actually the pollution from making doped silcon solar cells is
minimal.  The major semiconductor pollution problems are related to
"exotic" semiconductors such as Indium Arsinide and Gallium Arsinide,
and to the materials required to produce sub-micron feature sizes.
(Actually below about 10 microns, but most solar cells don't even come
near that.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Patrick Dieter /  fusion assignment NEED HELP!!
     
Originally-From: s9511925@minyos.xx.rmit.EDU.AU (Patrick Joseph Dieter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion assignment NEED HELP!!
Date: 3 Aug 1995 01:33:31 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.


hi there!
 my name is patrick dieter and i am a student at r.m.i.t. melbourne 
australia.
i am currently studing applied physics and am in my first year.


now: i need to get some information <basic stuff> i suppose on fusion and 
cold fusion for  an assignment that i need to do. i thought that someone 
here could help me.
 
thanks a lot.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudens9511925 cudfnPatrick cudlnDieter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Barry Merriman /  Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 2 Aug 1995 03:30:20 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-0108951119550001@199.172.8.155> 21cenlogic@i-link.net  
(Mitchell Jones) writes:

[Regarding the Griggs excess heat hot water experiments]

***{There is no "problem" to locate! The situation is too simple! 

Mitchell: basically, what your are telling me is: this 
is a very simple experiment, involving only a couple gross measurements
and using standard, tried and true hardware. Some competent
people executed the experiment and computed 10% excess heat.

Fine. But because they have not documented a painstaking search
for errors in their procedure, that renders it inconclusive. I
suggest that they have just stumbled upon a loophole in their
experimental design (which surely must be more likely
than discovering a new power source in a blender).

> 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!

Try this experiment: place wallet on bare table, stand ~ 10 ft
away. Cover one eye with hand, focus other eye on wallet, then
turn head very slightly until wallet dissappears. Amazing! By tilting
your head slightly you can teleport the wallet into and out of
our universe! I think its some sort of ZPF effect, myself.
What could possibly be wrong? This is simplicity in itself---your'e
looking at it with your _own eyes_! To question this is absurdity....

Of course, the truth is that the measuring device being used
to monitor the wallets existence---the human eye---has a blind
spot due to the presence of the optic nerve root obscuring a
small part of the retina's field of view. It is a visual instrument
with < 100 percent coverage of the commonly perceived field of view.

So, if you want a concrete example of such a potential loophole---I make
no claim that this is likely---suppose they tune the machine
to produce a flow mode that statistically tends to produce
hot spots near the thermocouples, causing them to overestimate 
outflow temp by 10%. Voil'a, a ``special'' excess heat hot water mode.

The above is of course very unlikely---but then how likely was it
that the eye had a blind spot? Its just a particular loophole
that exists, and if your search carefully for it you find its
effect.

The *only* way to eliminate such loopholes is to do exhaustive
cross checks, searching for them. In the case of eyes, if you always
use two of them the blind spot will not trouble you. For all
I know, if griggs would just use 12 thermocouples insead of 6, 
his excess heat mode would vanish as well.


Appealing to the simplicty of the experiment has no bearing on
whether such ``tuned'' circumstances exist or not. They can
only be ruled out by careful cross check, and moreover, they
are *very difficult to predict in advance*, so simply becuase I 
cannot figure out with high probabiliy what it is does not mean 
its not there.

Anything less than this approach is nothing more than faith
in the outcome.


You disagree with this, I take it?







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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 12:10 -0500 (EST)

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 
->   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.
 
This looks a little like extortion to me.  Don't universities normally provide
medical services (including psychological evaluations) free, or at least at a
greatly reduced cost to their students and employees?
 
                                                                  Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 02:31:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vil2l$u62@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce D. Scott) writes:
>Johan Wevers (johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl) wrote:
>: Bruce D. Scott <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:

>: >What do they think will happen when (not if) it doesn't perform as expected?
[snipped  were 
Excellent physics analyis with a bit of puffery for the physics issues. ]  

>                     .. ..  The problem is solvable, but not by
>blindly shooting in the dark like we would if designing and building a
>flagship device were undertaken, or even started, before direct
>simulation of the turbulence on a global scale has at least been
>attempted.  We are a few years short of that, but in my mind a few years
>(say 5 or so) is not too long to wait.

Very optimistic.  Bruce, as they say... time is money, and it looks
like the string is short for both.  

>--
>Mach's gut!
>Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Douglas Zare /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: zare@cco.caltech.edu (Douglas J. Zare)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 2 Aug 1995 11:01:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>You know, Plutonium and I don't, ahem, see eye-to-eye on _anything_.
>But Freedom of SPeech includes those freedoms to hold beliefs and
>philosophies that are repugnant to the majority.

MAKE MONEY FAST!!!! I hope you get my point. Although many people find 
AP's views and statements to be intollerable, I'll argue that his methods 
warrant some censure.

Spams are not acceptable forms of expression; they are abuses of the 
internet. AP's intentional volume of posts to irrelevant newsgroups 
constitutes an attack on those groups and a violation of the trust of 
those who support the internet with time, materials, and money. I find his 
false FAQ's to be even worse.

>This string reminds me that some people aren't willing to accept the
>responsibilities of those freedoms. To argue with Plutonium is one
>thing, to ignore him has been my choice. But to try and silence him in
>this manner is a pretty discusting trick.
>
>Maybe if everyone gets together and complains to the system manager
>several score of ScD's can defeat a janitor by stabbing him in the back.

There are many situations in which one individual can inconvenience and 
disrupt the activities of hundreds, and this is one of them. It is 
arguable whether cancelling his posts would be appropriate; so far this 
has not been done frequently. Complaining to someone's system 
administrator, in contrast, is the more generally accepted mechanism for 
dealing with his sort of behavior.

Douglas Zare
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenzare cudfnDouglas cudlnZare cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 2 Aug 1995 03:35:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <USE2PCB692390922@brbbs.brbbs.com>
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>  
> ->   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.
>  
> This looks a little like extortion to me.  Don't universities normally provide
> medical services (including psychological evaluations) free, or at least at a
> greatly reduced cost to their students and employees?

The student plan at Dartmouth (which may or may not be significantly
different from the one available to Archimedes) has a 200$ deductible,
and then you have to pay 10% of all costs above that. I think (but I am
not positive) that mental health services are covered.

Medication is covered. (I forget up to what limit.)

Therefore I bet that if he checks into it he will find that he can get
the checkup for less than 500$, but knowing the local hospital, he will
probably be out a few hundred dollars.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / 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: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 00:00:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <eBs59c2w200w@alcyone.darkside.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>
>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.

Personally I would really like to believe that anyone can be
considered a contributor to a public forum. AP has long ago
shown that he has little or nothing to add to the conference.

The proper attitude, in my opinion, is to ignore him. I don't
even bother to put him in a kill file because who knows when
he might decide to post something of intrinsic worth? I have seen
it happen in two other cases where I was quite sure that the poster
was an illiterate boob. And then they began posting such well
thought out and careful postings that I really suspected that
it was another person using the account. But it wasn't.

So I read a line or two of his postings if his titles aren't too
offensive and decide whether to 'N' or not. Is this too easy for
people?

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 18:05:12 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3v737k$33a@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
>
>2. Electron capture by a proton or deuteron isn't energetically allowed
>due to the mass difference between the neutron and proton. If it were,
>then the electron in the hydrogen or deuterium atom would be captured
>since there is all the time in the world for this to happen.

Isn't it true that it *is* allowed, but not for very long? I'm old
and way out of practice so I excuse myself from working the numbers
for the uncertainty time. Could two protons fuse while one is
temporarily neutral? Course, you still have to explain how the excess
energy turns sneakily into heat (no gammas, etc).
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Tasgal Richard /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: tasgal@leo.math.tau.ac.il (Tasgal Richard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 09:12:58 GMT
Organization: School of Math & CS - Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv , ISRAEL.

In article <DCn9Mt.MGy@midway.uchicago.edu> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
:>Matthew Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
:>:
:>: 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 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.

This would in effect make oil companies (partial) health insurance providers.

People would pay a premium when they purchase fossil fuels, and get the money
back (perhaps indirectly, depending on the form of regulations or taxes) when
they fall ill.  This is not what most people expect to happen when they
suggest taxing oil companies for health damage, but it is not necessarily
unworkable.  (By the way, I did see anyone in this thread say that people
would not ultimately pay for taxes on oil companies.)

--
Richard Tasgal                      "Do not sing without harp accompaniment."
tasgal@math.tau.ac.il               --Pythagoras
http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~tasgal/
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentasgal cudfnTasgal cudlnRichard cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Chris Jacobs /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: cjacobs@xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 2 Aug 1995 06:52:06 GMT
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

Hello Archimedes,

I would like you _not_ to go post medical reports in the newsgroups about 
your sanity.

It could give the impression that Barry Merryman only should abstain from 
publicly calling you mentally ill when you are not.

Of course Barry should just not publicly call persons mentally ill, not even
if it were true.

Chris

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencjacobs cudfnChris cudlnJacobs cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 18:38 -0500 (EST)

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
-> >(Quatium?) is unstable, it would emit a beta particle, returning it back to
-> >He4, but losing the energy of the beta in the process.
->
-> Again, this nucleus is not stable against particle emission, so the weak
-> decay loses to the strong decay by a huge factor.
 
First we would have to determine the mass of the H4.  As an example, if we were
dealing with He6 instead, which decays into Li6, the deficit would be 3.506
Mev. If we are seeing a similar deficit in He4 capturing an electron, then
there may not be sufficient energy left for the strong decay of H4 to take
place.  It would be under the "threshold".  Unfortunately, I cannot find any
references which hint at what the mass of H4 might be.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 1 Aug 1995 23:38:09 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: 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.

We are already paying for it today.  It's called Medicare and
the Department of Defense. 

: Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Paul Dietz /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 18:51:59 -0500
Organization: Software Engineering Research Lab

In article <1995Aug1.184537.9374@nosc.mil> north@nosc.mil wrote:

> 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.

Unless you realize that subduction takes tens of thousands of years to
travel even a single mile, that the sediments in which the waste would
be placed are often scraped off, not subducted, and that subduction
zones often have "mud volcanoes" in this melange.  Just what we want,
the dissolution products of vitrified waste being mixed in with a zone
where fluids will be erupting.

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: 1 Aug 1995 21:33:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The nucleus mass is computed as the total of the masses of the nucleons
i.e.
938.28 MeV   for a proton
939.573 MeV for a neutron
minus the mass corresponding to the binding energy. That is:
2.22 MeV for H2
8.48 MeV for H3
non-existent for H4 (it will fall apart)
7.72 MeV for He3
28.30 MeV for He4
non-existent for He5
29.27 MeV for He6
non existent for Li5
32.00 MeV for Li6
39.25 MeV for Li7
37.60 MeV for Be7
56.50 MeV for Be8

From these numbers we can calculate the nuclear masses for D and He4, they
are:
1875.633 MeV for D and 3727.406 for He4. The He4* we have been talking
about has an extra 23.86 MeV energy. I think it is pretty unlikely that
this excited He4 would not break up, instead there might be some series of
more compound reactions that produce the fusion energy without excessive
amount of radiation. These reactions may involve electron capture, beta
emission, muonic beta decay, muon catalized fusion, compound reactions
involving Tritium created by earlier reactions. I seem to recall that P&F
had some litium salt in their electrolyt. I wonder if somebody can verify
that? The muonic beta decay seemed attractive to me earlier but the muon
has a 105.66 MeV rest mass so there is not enough energy to create one
here.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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 21:57:03 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <kovskyDCMywH.ys@netcom.com>
kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes:

> 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."

  Thank you very kindly for this professional advice Mr. Kovsky. And it
looks as the odds are unfavorable. But I am reminded about the European
physicist who hired a lawyer and won out of court settlement. I think
these circumstances are in my favor. (1) It was not a passing comment
but a frequent and systematic broadcasting. I mean, will the Internet
accomodate someone who posts continual hate mail non-stop against
another (2) It seems so much of justice these days is settled out of
court rather than tie up time. In my case, my job is of no consequence
but Barry's is. (3) Barry is connected to big organizations, they would
probably say "pay the 500 and be done with it" rather than tie up their
people (4) The letter of the law and the precedences are one thing, but
"appearances" and "cutting losses" are in my favor. Why bother wasting
"defendants" time costing thousands, and here I am calling for 500
bucks to get a medical which Barry seemed so concerned. There is a
murder trial out  in california which we see how important issues not
related to the case at hand. (5) There was a damage to me which for me
would be simple to prove. I was reserved space in a physics journal and
my submission was declined. It was declined because of attacks at me
from the Internet. How much is a published article on science worth to
a professional, it is hard to put a price. So if I meet Barry in court
it will not be for hundreds but thousands
   (6) But of most importance to me is "my day in court". Just think of
how far and wide I can speak about the Plutonium ATom Totality. I would
love to have the word Plutonium on the pages of newspapers. Win or
lose, I cannot lose. The only bad publicity is no publicity for a
science revolutionary.

   So, if the 500 bucks is not sent I would like to hire a lawyer. I
would like to know the email of the lawyer who defended the European
physicist and won.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 06:55:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>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.

I don't think so.  Few people are aware that the solar constant isn't.  
There have been periods extending for several hundred years when
the orb has either underpreformed or over performed, with quite 
serious effects to man's economy and well being.  

Further it doesn't provide energy which we can untilize safely in
high densities for driving fast transport for example.  

>: 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. 

I have a different opinion!  We will need the desserts, and your shingle 
every roof for solar is vastly too expensive. These things don't 
last forever, and they aren't very efficient.  Or do you count 
subsidized projects as cheap?    

>The *only* long term alternatives are solar
>or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
>fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using too
>much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel
>is solar. It is not a question of converting to solar power but rather
>of using solar in a way that is not environmentally damaging and
>is sustainable.

Quite the contrary.  We haven't been using nearly enough ff.  What
is required to raise the level of the biosphere on earth is to
restore huge amounts of atmospheric CO2 (the levels present during 
the carbonaceous period). Then there would be an accelerated plant 
growth which would result in far more density tonage of biosphere 
and surface coverage (including those desserts).  What's required
is to clean the CO2 of other acid gases, and that can be done
with lime stone.  Or use fusion energy to release C02 from such
stone formations and use the remaining basic oxides to de-acidify 
exiting acid regions.  The advantage here, is that O2 is increased 
as well as C02.    

Then there are those energy intensive (actually power intensive)
applications, that solar hasn't a chance of fixing.  These would
be terra-forming projects, super sonic high payload earth and
planetary transport and power space (asteroids) and planetary 
soil reconditioning or generation for agriculture efforts, mining 
and building.  

>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. 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.

Besides God prohibits the use of fission, or so I'm told.  And
that leaves just one cheap, clean and powerful alternative which 
is high density aneutronic (fusion) energy devices.  There are 
three commercial companies devoted to developing just such beasties.  
It's too tough a problem for the DoE and its pet Labs.  

>Paul Budnik
Paul Koloc
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug  3 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
