1995.08.02 / Paul Budnik /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 08:12:28 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: 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.  

You think we can make a fusion reactor that will produce output
even above or below expectations for several hundred years?

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

Of course there are issues of storage of energy. But these all seem
more tractable than fusion. Keep in mind that we can use solar
energy to make just about any fuel. It is only a question of cost,
efficiency and the environmental impact of the entire cycle of
manufacturing and using the fuel.

: >: 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?

A recent issue of Business Week pointed out that solar is expected
to be cost competitive with grid power in many urban areas by the
year 2000. Once that crossover happens I expect the use of solar
to grow rapidly and the costs to continue to fall as efficiencies
rise. The research that is making this possible was motivated by
the need to expand electrical capacity without increasing pollution
in LA. Solar is ideal for this since its output is at a peak when
demand for air conditioning is also at a peak. The breakthrough
came when TI was able to manufacture solar cells from amorphous
silicon. This greatly reduced costs. If the money that has been
thrown down the rat hole of fusion research had been well invested
in solar research solar would probably be in wide spread use today.

: >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).

First fossil fuel is solar power. It is just solar power in a
form that is not sustainable. Second we need to understand the
atmosphere and the planet far better before we start reengineering
the atmosphere. Large scale engineering projects taken on with
too narrow an understanding of the entire system regularly lead
to disasters that cost a fortune to undo. It is possible that
projects on this scale cannot be undone.

: 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.    

Fuel from plants (as opposed to fossil fuel) might be a significant
element in a solar economy.

The rest of what you suggest is bizarre and dangerous. Lets solve the
problems we understand. Solving problems we do not understand is a good
way to get into a great deal of trouble as recent history has demonstrated
over and over.

: 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.  

Dream on, just please do not try to actually do any of these things.
Perhaps you should seek employment as a writer for Star Trek.

: >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.  

You cannot say solar power does not work because the world for the
most part is run on solar power. It is only a question of converting
to a sustainable and environmentally benign form of solar power.

Many companies invest in technological solutions that never pan out.
I cannot say that it is impossible to develop a clean safe form of fusion
but I think it quite unlikely with any foreseeable technology.
In contrast solar can solve the problems economically and with
existing technology. Some parts of the puzzle such as energy storage
for transportation are not yet economical but they will be in
a foreseeable time frame. Were other forms of power required to
pay their full cost (including pollution damage) solar would be
widely competitive today.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Paul Budnik /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 12:30:00 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

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


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

: The problem is the location of those deserts.  For Europe, the closest
: desert is the Sahara, not the most politically stable of places.  Using
: solar power in Europe is a good idea which is being put into practice
: (there _is_ enough ground-level flux here), but it is expensive and will
: only work for home energy needs.

Its not that expensive today and in the foreseeable future it will
be the cheapest alternative.

: As you indicate, industry needs more
: than that, much more.  And without fossil fuel the energy for
: transportation will have to be generated at the plant level and then
: stored and sold in devices not dissimilar from batteries or H-fuel
: cells.

Solar can be used to make hydrogen or other fuels that can be transported
economically. The conversion will be a gradual process with home
power supplies first. How other needs will be met is impossible to foresee
in detail but there are plenty of practical alternatives and it is just
a question what pans out first at an acceptable cost.

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

As I have repeatedly said Business Week reports that this use of solar
is expected to be cost competitive by the year 2000. This probably
involves amortizing the cost over the useful life of the panels which
is about 30 years. However to be cost competitive means its a good
investment at current interest rates.

: Problem is, Paul, "industrial or high density populations" does indeed
: include most of the world, if not now then certainly 50 years from now.

I beg to differ. Communication technology is on the verge of eliminating
many of the advantages of large urban centers. In any event one
can use solar energy to manufacture fuels such as hydrogen which can
be transported economically.

: The alternative is to condemn many masses to serf-hood.  The large
: emerging industrial nations will not be satisfied with that (nor should
: they be expected to be).  Population levels will have to drop before all
: this can be powered with solar energy.

The earth has a finite but unknown carrying capacity. I doubt that we
are there yet and technology can increase the carrying capacity. In any
event there is no way to safely use more energy than is obtainable
by solar power with any foreseeable technology. 

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

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

We will reach a sustainable population sooner or later one way or the
other. I see no reason why solar will not in time be adequate for
the existing population and even a somewhat larger one. Of course the
path to solar will be over an extended period of time. It will be
driven by a combination of economics and increased attention to the
effects and cost of pollution.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Paul Budnik /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 2 Aug 1995 12:32:23 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <3vlen8$nri@mtnmath.com>, paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
: >Matthew Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
: >: Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote:
: >
: >: : Nuclear is obscenely expensive when you
: >: : take into account the cost of storing and monitoring the radioactive
: >: : by products for 50,000 years or more.
: >
: >: Same for fossil fuels but nobody is making them pay.  The present existing
: >: health damage from fossil fuel burning is quantifiable and real and present
: >: TODAY but exxon isn't required to pay for this.  Can you imagine if they
: >: had to pay their amortized medical bills?  
: >
: >I think that would be an excellent idea and have for decades.

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

Of course that is the whole point. Consumers should pay the real cost
of the fuel they use. Unless they do they will not make reasonable decsions
in using fuel or choosing between alternative fuels.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 10:39:40 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vf26b$g65@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2907951758030001@austin-1-14.i-link.net> Mitchell
> Jones, 21cenlogic@i-link.net writes:
> >***{Here you guys have agreed to treat this problem classically, and you
> >are simply visualizing an alpha particle forming next to a palladium atom,
> >and pushing off to the tune of 20 MeV or so. Most of the energy goes to
> >the alpha, and it kicks off some x-rays or gammas when it bounces around
> >elsewhere. Well, fine. 
> 
> Okay, that's the picture, and I'm glad you see why 
> it's problematic for CF.

***{I'm just playing your game, Bob. My personal view is that CF isn't
fusion, but that's a can of worms I'll not go into here. --Mitchell
Jones}***  
> 
> >But there are other ways to play this game. For
> >example, why not imagine the alpha forming *between* two palladium atoms,
> >and simultaneously kicking off from both of them? Result: the alpha
> >doesn't move, and the two palladiums get 10 MeV apiece, which works out as
> >heat in the lattice. 
> 
> An interesting idea, but how do you plan to get two palladium
> nuclei close enough to a single alpha that they could pick 
> up 10 MeV each? 

***{Now, now, Bob--I'm just playing the game by the rules you set up,
remember? You didn't have to get your alpha close enough to your single Pd
so that they could share the 20 Mev, and so I don't have to get my alpha
close enough to my two Pd's so that they can do so! I agreed to play the
game by your simplified rules because it seemed to be an intriguing
mathematical formalism, and worthy of exploration. However, I'm not about
to let you change the rules in the middle of the game. That ain't kosher,
old buddy! --Mitchell Jones}***

 Remember, for both of them to interact that 
> strongly with the alpha, they will have to be *really* close 
> to the alpha.  You need to show that you can get palladium 
> nuclei that close without giving them so much energy that
> they destroy the lattice.

***{Not according to the rules of the game you were playing, in the post
to which I responded. You were not doing "quantum mechanics" there: you
were merely juxtaposing, without giving reasons, a newly formed alpha
particle with a palladium atom, and invoking simple classical assumptions
to apportion the energy of formation within the two particle system. All I
did was accept the rules that you were playing by and show that, by those
rules, your conclusion--to wit: that a high energy alpha would kick
through the lattice--did not follow. I didn't endorse the rules of your
game; I merely accepted them and generated a slightly different scenario.
Don't demand that I show that the three particle configuration I set up is
possible by the rules of "quantum mechanics," when you made no attempt to
show that your two particle system was possible by those rules. My point
was simply that if you accept the formation of an alpha particle within
the lattice as a postulate, it doesn't have to occur under the conditions
that you set up. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Of course, the other problem with your hypothesis is that 
> 10MeV palladium nuclei will *also* "kick off some x-rays or 
> gammas when [they] bounce around elsewhere" (to resurrect your 
> own phrase).  You can't have an appreciable number of 
> 10MeV Pd nuclei in a lattice without knowing about it!

***{As I noted above, I do not believe that CF is fusion, though I do
believe that an occasional fusion event occurs while CF is going on. Thus
I do not believe that, even if those occasional fusion events were to
occur while neatly positioned between two palladium atoms, the number of
them would be "appreciable"--i.e., easily detectible. As for the question
of whether 10 Mev palladium nuclei would kick off x-rays or gammas, I am
sure they would: electrons dropping down into inner shells could hardly do
otherwise! But, of course, your assumption that we would be dealing with
*nuclei*--i.e., with palladium atoms which had somehow been stripped bare
of orbiting electrons--dictates that outcome, now doesn't it? (When new
electrons are captured by such a nucleus, they will kick off x-rays and
gammas as they drop down to fill positions in the inner shells.) Since (a)
the palladium atoms in the lattice do not start out stripped bare of
electrons down to their nuclei, and (b) in the original context, the
particle in question was explicitly defined as a palladium atom, not a
palladium nucleus, you are clearly--again--abandoning the rules of the
mathematical formalism that we were exploring, in the middle of the
discussion. In case you have simply forgotten what was being discussed,
the following quote should suffice: "Say for the sake of argument that XX
is a palladium atom (very massive with respect to D2 or He4)." Remember?
--Mitchell Jones}***    
 > 
> >The whole point of all this is
> >that nobody really knows what in the hell is going on in that palladium
> >lattice. It's mighty crowded in there, and it is hard to be sure exactly
> >what specific circumstance leads to the formation of the alpha particles.
> >Maybe they *really do* form between colliding palladium atoms. I, for one,
> >certainly can't prove they don't. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Actually, the palladium lattice is almost entirely empty space, if
> you consider how close the nuclei have to get for nuclear reactions to
> occur. That's an important point.   

***{Again, you are dropping the context of the original discussion when
you begin to introduce questions of how close particles have to get in
order for nuclear reactions to occur. The original discussion didn't worry
about such details: they were simply assumed to be satisfied, with an
explicit agreement to disregard the details. (Again, a pertinent quote
should suffice: "Suppose for some unknown reason the reacton D2+D2 + XX ->
He4 + XX +photon (appropriate wavelength) were possible and in fact
probable enough under the right conditions to produce results like those
claimed.") I would add, as an aside, that you also seem to be forgetting
that the lattice under discussion is filled ("loaded") with protons
(hydrogen nuclei) and with deuterons (nuclei of heavy hydrogen). This
particular palladium lattice is *not* "almost entirely empty space."
--Mitchell Jones}***

>Why don't you do the calculation
> to see how close an alpha would have to be to have a 10MeV interaction
> with a Pd nucleus?  

***{Because, if I were to do so, I would be permitting you to change the
rules in the middle of the discussion. My statements were made within the
context that had already been established, and were based on the
assumptions implicit to that context. I have no intention of trying to
defend those statements in a different context, where different
assumptions obviously apply. To do so would make no more sense than, in a
chess game, continuing to play after one's opponent had elected to move
his knight as if it were a rook! --Mitchell Jones}***

Just picture them as point charges.
> Now compare that with a typical lattice separation distance.  
> Which is bigger?  
> 
> I think the bottom line is that with some simple
> logical arguments you can go a long way towards setting
> very stringent criteria which any viable theory of CF must
> satisfy.  These criteria eliminate from consideration
> both the theories discussed above. The only way for an
> alpha to be born in the lattice without any telltale
> x-rays, gamma-rays, or other high-energy side effects is
> if it somehow gives up essentially all its energy to the
> lattice immediately upon birth.  But that requires it to 
> be coupled to not one, not two, but thousands of lattice 
> atoms.  The trouble is, why should it do that instead of 
> what it normally does?  And how do you get around the 
> fact that the speed of light is too slow for the alpha 
> to interact with all those nuclei in a sufficiently short 
> time?  Hence the mystery, and the joy of Cold Fusion theory.

***{Here we agree completely: "cold fusion" ain't fusion! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> But just because the problem is unsolved doesn't mean 
> that you can't eliminate many ideas from consideration 
> with simple arguments based on core principles of physics.
> (Unless you're willing to question those core principles,
> which the experimental evidence hasn't convinced me I should
> do yet.)  Keep this in mind as you think about CF.

***{Actually, I abandoned the metaphysical foundations of "modern physics"
long ago. That's why I am not troubled by the CF results. To me, the
various absurdities routinely postulated by "physicists" today (e.g.,
"waves in nothing," "curved space," "observer dependent variables,"
"objective probability," "time travel," "parallel universes,"
"wave-particle dualities," "velocity dependent mass," a "vacuum" filled
with a complex particulate medium that has myriad properties and yet,
somehow, is not an "ether," etc.) are merely occasion for laughter.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Heeter
> Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
> http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
> Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:05:14 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <cas.82.0071580F@ops1.bwi.wec.com> cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) writes:
>X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ops117.bwi.wec.com
>References: <3ubdg1$k9m@cnn.Princeton.EDU> <3ue2dl$crm@mtnmath.mtnmath.
om> <3vgnhv$3o68@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com>
<3vj6og$5bh@martha.utk.edu> <3vlen8$nri@mtnmath.com> <1995Aug1.184537.93
4@nosc.mil>
>Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation
>X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4]
>
>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.

That may not work either, since in desserts, there is generally copious
amounts of sun.  One of the things that will happen is that the glass will
solarize, turn a pretty blusih or purplish color, and "crystalize".  The
bounding within the glass will be considerably weakened, so it is entirely
possible that such glass bricks thus effected may explode, due to the
their weadkened condition and trapping of ^4He and Xe ash from the decay
chemistry.  

                 Seems like some days you just can't win!
>>Mark
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bob C.
>
>* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:10:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

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

A few blocks are good!

>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
Hey Mark, there are only two authorities than it's foolish to argue
with, one is God and the other is Hans Bethe.  
>
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 3 Aug 1995 12:55:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I thought a little more about the electron capture by D. It would appear
that when the D (or pn bound system) performs an electron capture we end
up with an nn system which has no binding energy, under normal conditions
it would fall apart except for the problem of the missing energy. We know
that electron capture occurs with simultaneous neutrino emission and that
it takes some 0.78 MeV energy for it to happen. So there is either no
electron capture by the D or if electron capture happens the resulting nn
system would have to have an energy deficit. The neutrino emission makes
it impossible for the electron capture to instantly reverse unless there
is some energy source like the fusion reaction to generate enough energy
in which case the electron capture could occur as an intermediary step in
a three body reaction. 

For a theory to be useful it should explain some experimental phenomena or
predict it. In this case we need to explain the lack of radiation, the
flare-ups in the heat production that P & F reported and we could use a
recipee on how to make a practical reactor.

To explain the flare-ups I thought of the following: 

An initial three body reaction creates excited He4* as well as it emits an
electron in the 3 MeV energy ballpark. This electron collides with another
electron splitting the energy so we have two electrons 1.5 MeV each. One
of these electrons collides with a D in the shell of a Pd ion. Since the
electron has more than 0.78 MeV energy the electron capture is allowed,
the D is converted to two thermal neutrons. These thermal neutrons have no
coulomb barrier to overcome, so they just sail untill they slowly impact
another D or the Palladium or something. Remember from fission reactors we
know that having slow neutrons around is a good thing. The slow neutrons
would allow production of tritium, He3, etc. If some neutrons don't
collide they beta decay after a long time (15 minutes) and produce
electrons at 0.78 MeV and protons. 

Perhaps we can compute some breeding coefficient like alpha for fission
reactors, but in our case the reaction would produce energetic electrons.



Zoltan Szakaly 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 3 Aug 1995 12:55:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Would you enlighten me about the Griggs device? I can't find a reference
on what it is.


Thanks,

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  ZoltanCCC /  CF nuclear rocket propulsion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF nuclear rocket propulsion
Date: 3 Aug 1995 12:56:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This post about UFO's made me think about using the hot high pressure of a
conventional rocket combustion chamber to induce nuclear reactions. What I
thought was that these rocket engines have instability problems. They
build them to avoid instabilities, but perhaps the instabilities could be
utilized to create plazma particle accelerators. There was a very good
article in Scientific American a few years back about plasma accelerators.
With a travelling wave in a plasma you can accelerate particles much more
efficiently than more normal accelerators. Perhaps such a plasma
accelerator could create muons inside the combustion chamber and we could
use liquid D instead of H as fuel. The fusion reactions that arise due to
the muons could drive up the exhaust velocity of the rocket engine,
improving its specific impulse.
Perhaps another version of this could be a stationary nuclear reactor.


Any thoghts on this would be appretiated.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solar/fusion
Date: 3 Aug 1995 16:41:29 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <EACHUS.95Aug3113045@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:

> In an otherwise good article, George Blahusiak (George@Omen.com.au) writes:
> 
>   > 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.
> 
>      Of course currently all that collecter area is currently in
> perpetual shadow?  Right...  The sun shines on the surface where you
> would put the collectors, and as much as 98% of that insolation is
> captured.  (A lot is reradiated as infrared, but that is a different
> part of the equation.)
> 

I think his claim was that the collectors altered the albedo of the planet.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /   /  Filimonenko's "warm fusion invention" of 1960
     
Originally-From: "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Filimonenko's "warm fusion invention" of 1960
Date: 3 Aug 1995 21:16:28 +0400
Organization: Alexander V. Frolov, Private Account

This information is prepared by Russian magazine for inventors "Izobretatel
i Razionalizator" numer 1, 1995, page 8-9. Translation and commenary by
Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, 193024, St.-Petersburg, Russia.
e-mail alex@frolov.spb.su

           "The fusion is coming but where is Kurtchatov?"
                         by N.E.Zaev, Moscow


The inventor Ivan Stepanovitch Filimonenko has 71 y. old now. In 1960 well-
known people Igor Kurtchatov, Sergey Koroliov and Georgiy Jukov strived for
including of Filimonenko's work in state programm for scientific-technical
progress in Soviet Union. The Decision of Council of Ministres and Communist
Party Central Committee number 715/296 of 23.07.1960 order to develop the
next strategic important principles for Filimonenko's technology:
- produce of energy;
- produce of motive force without fling back of mass;
- protection from nuclear reaction radiation.
In 1962 Filimonenko got the patent paper number 717239/38 of 27 Jule 1962
"The Process and System for Thermo-emission".
Main idea of Filimonenko's process is the electrolysis of heavy water. The
absorption of deuterium take place in hard cathode ( palladium ) and it is
the place for fusion reaction. This fusion is not "cold" but it is "warm"
fusion because of it take place for 1000'C degrees. There are no neutron
emission for this case. Filimonenko discovered new effect: when the system
is in operate the strange emission from system take place that change the
time period of half-decay and supress inducted radioactivity.

//Note, small electric power produce big thermo-power for this case of o/u
system. Instead of energy dispersion ( entropy ) process there are energy
concentration ( syntropy ) process. It is possible only when the curvature
of space-time is change. The local space-time changes produce gravity effect
and influence to inducted radioactivity. It is clear that any deviation of
space-time curvature from normal curvature of our planet produce the influence
to any biosystem in area of o/u process. The medical aspect of such sort
systems is most serious problem for development of free energy//

All Filimonenko's works was stoped in 1968. Inventor had 6 years of prison
for actions against nuclear programm. In 1989 and 1990 in Moscow area plant
"Lutch" was created two Filimonenko's reactors: tube has  0.7 m length and
0.041 m diameter. The palladium part have 9 gramm mass. Power is 12,5 Kwtts
for one reactor.
==========================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenalex cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Tom Potter /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 3 Aug 1995 17:56:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vnrg3$eus@seralph9.essex.ac.uk> ierof@brave4.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F) writes: 

>
>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?

Is this a subtle way of telling me to "go to Hell"?
Or do you have a mythical Hell in mind?

Different strokes for different folks...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 3 Aug 1995 18:00:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vnutj$h5g@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 

> 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:

Forgive me for misunderstanding your comment.
I didn't like the phrase "shakes head in despair"
regardless to whom it was directed.

> >>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 naive 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.

I have shown many times that all properties can be reduced to cycles
and cycle ratios. These physical properties are sensed and converted to
mind stuff. The hierarchy of transforms from fundamental "reality"
( Cycles ) to perception is as follows:
cycles -> cycle ratios -> physical properties ( frequency, energy, etc. )
-> sensory input -> auto correlation with other simultaneous sensory input
-> cross correlation with existing memory -> mental perception

1. All of the physical properties can be mapped directly to cycles.

2. The senses are non-linear and only operate with a resolution
   of about one percent of the full scale log response.

3. Perception involves both sensory input and hard wired calculations
   which have proved to have some survival value. For example, various
   animals see colors, shape and movement differently. This difference
   was selected out by "Natural Selection" forces.

4. After perception, the input data is resolved in such a way as to
   optimize glandular secretions. For example, Ben Joe Bullock
   compares new input data to the model of physics he has formed
   through years of study. If the new data does "not compute",
   various glandular secretions occur and he must resolve this
   conflict with a fight or flight reaction. ( Flaming or kill filing )

> 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.

The difference between physics and language is that there is not a
quasi-random, environmentally-based, relationship between "idea" and
the verbal representation of that idea. Just as large objects can be
broken into smaller objects, complex properties can be broken up
into smaller ( more fundamental ) properties. Once you have broken
down a complex property ( Or object ) to cycles,
there is no place else to go. The ultimate form of information
is the BIT ( Binary unIT ) which in its most fundamental form is
the smallest cycle available. ( That associated with the electron
at this time, and that associated with the neutrino later. )

> >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.

Then why should we screw around with atoms and atomic particles?
Why not consider the human as fundamental and define all chemicals,
elements and particles in terms of "the human".

> >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...

Unfortunately, physics is currently a massive hierarchy, from which
data has been assembled using the existing model. For example, if
you use my method on Solar system data, you will find that you end
up with a better variance ( Standard deviation ) than you will get
if you used conventional physics. It becomes clear that the data
which one uses as a standard to which a new theory must be gauged
is computed from the existing theories. In other words, almost
all astronomical and ionization data operates on the principle
that radius is a primary concept rather than considering that
two distances or interaction times best define a system. This
approach causes the "reduced mass" problem in atoms and similar
errors in orbital systems.

In other words, if NASA and any other organization used my
approach to computing orbits and such:

1. The results would be more accurate.
2. The computation would be simpler, and thus less prone to error.
3. Much less computer resources would be needed. This is very
   desirable in real-time and processor-intensive applications.
4. The Babel of units and constants could be done away with.

I am confident that a few programmers around the world have grasped what I
have presented, and that as they discover how much their programs can be
improved by using my approach, that they will be forced to use them in
tight real-time and processor-intensive applications, and at that point
these ideas will rapidly permeate the data processing, engineering and
physics communities.

I welcome inquiries from companies, engineers and programmers who
are fighting time or processor constraints in real-time applications.
Why work with the Babel of convoluted equations, a multitude of
constants and units when there is a better, faster, more accurate way?


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / James Crotinger /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 3 Aug 95 18:02:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> You miss my point.  You won't be forcing them to pay these costs,
> you'll be paying these costs.  Any added expense to the oil
> companies will immediately translate itself to a higher price on
> most the stuff you are using.  If you want to argue that these costs
> will be offset by savings in other areas, then we should get all the
> numbers and compare.  But do not think of this in terms of "forcing
> them to pay".  The "tehm" you talk about are us.

  Of course. But once the costs are made visable, different energy
sources can compete fairly. 

  Jim

--
 -----------------------------------------------/\---------------------------
James A. Crotinger   Lawrence Livermore N'Lab  // \  The above views are mine
crotinger@llnl.gov   P.O. Box 808;  L-630  \\ //---\  and are not necessarily
(510) 422-0259       Livermore CA  94550    \\/Amiga\  those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Doug Merritt /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 17:29:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

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

I think $200 is quite generous, and that if you go to court, you'll
regret it rather than he.

Litigation should always be the last resort, not the first.

What's the problem with explaining your theories to the doctor?
I thought you liked explaining them. Take the $200 along with his
conditions, it's more than you'll get if you go to court.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:55:58 -0500
Organization: Software Engineering Research Lab

In article <EACHUS.95Aug2193133@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org write:

 >In article <3vhlb6$1hi@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Martin Sevior <msevior@phy
ics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:

 >  > Once employed in the breeder mode, the Earths Uranium resources
 >  > are sufficient to last indefinately.
 >
 >   Actually, to get more than a century or so, assuming reasonable
 >growth rates in energy consumption you need to use both uranium and
 >thorium.

This is false.  Uranium by itself, used in breeder reactors, is
sufficient to last on the order of a billion years at today's rate of
primary energy demand.  The uranium dissolved in the oceans will last
on the rough order of a million years.

Your figure likely just involves known resources, which are available
at a cost suitable for use in burner reactors.  Breeders could
tolerate uranium at costs 1000x the price of uranium today.  Or perhaps
you were assuming unabated exponential growth in energy demand
(in which case you fry the Earth from the waste heat long before
the uranium runs out.)

There are reasons for using thorium, but this isn't one of them.

	Paul


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 13:57:28 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

[megasnip]
> 
> ***{At this point, the explanation for your seemingly mind-boggling
> statements emerges: you are playing word games, rather than engaging in
> serious discourse. Rather than respond to the position actually taken by
> your opponents--to wit: that the mainstream media have *overwhelmingly*
> rejected CF

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

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

No---my definition of uniform corresponds to your definition of
overwhelming.
> 
> > Given your behavior, I suppose it would be appropriate, at this
> > point, for me to deliver forth a string of expletives,
> 
> It would? Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough crowd.
> 
***{As it happens, Barry, most of my friends are convicted murderers. 

Seriously, my comment about the string of expletives was an instance of
hyperbole: conscious exaggeration to emphasize a point. In doing that, I
merely took a leaf from your book. After all, if you can substitute
"uniform" for "overwhelming," how can you complain when I exaggerate? 

By the way, your response of "Gee, I guess you hang out with a tough
crowd" was what is known as "a perfect squelch." Congratulations!
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 3 Aug 1995 19:29:52 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3vqv1n$6rj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
ZoltanCCC <zoltanccc@aol.com> wrote:

>An initial three body reaction creates excited He4* as well as it emits an
>electron in the 3 MeV energy ballpark. 

Have you calculated the velocity at which a 3 MeV electron is moving?
Have you considered the Bremsstrahlung from such an electron moving 
through a sea of charges?
--
					Richard Schultz

"To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
To Die, to sleepe, is that all?  I all;
No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes. . ."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 14:45:51 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vb9gs$g4q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

[snip]

 Is it freedom of speech that a Barry Merriman
> opines not once that he thinks I am insane,  but rather incessantly and
> very frequently? The news groups are sci.math and sci.physics
> hierarachy, is it  freedom of speech to scream in someones face every
> time they go down the road that you think they are insane or a
> crackpot?

***{Arch, it isn't freedom of speech if the behavior contains an actual or
an implied threat. Nobody has a right to threaten others. However, in
Barry's case it is just noise. My advice to you, therefore, is this:
lighten up. Believe me, you don't want to get involved with lawyers and
courts over something silly. You have better things to do with your time.
Barry may bark with his fur humped up on his back, as you say, but he
doesn't bite, so you should simply consider the source and move on. Live
and let live. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / G Sanderson /  Cartesian Coordinate Problem
     
Originally-From: gordon.s@ix.netcom.com (Gordon Sanderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cartesian Coordinate Problem
Date: 3 Aug 1995 21:01:09 GMT
Organization: Speedcheck Methods, Inc.

Help!

I am looking for a formula/solution to the following problem.
I am attempting to graph points in 3 dimensional space using a
Cartesian Coordinate System.
The point in space is determined by the distances to 3 or 4 known
points in space.
I want to enter the coordinates (x,y,z) of the known points and the
distances from the known points to the unknown point. 
I am searching for the formula to put all these together, so that I may
come up with a spreadsheet to produce the correct Cartesian
Coordinates.

If you have an answer, or know where I may look, please leave e-mail.

Thanks,
 
-- 
Gordon Sanderson
gordon.s@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudens cudfnGordon cudlnSanderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / 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: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 20:52:02 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

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

>>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

>Hey Mark, there are only two authorities than it's foolish to argue
>with, one is God and the other is Hans Bethe.  

Well, I was going to say, "Hans Bethe said it, I believe it, that
settles it", but I thought better of it. 8^)

Mark



















cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 21:21:01 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3vqmir$5hc@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, will1000@ix.netcom.com
(Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <DCpx8z.M9o@midway.uchicago.edu> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: 
>>
>>In article <3vo0pc$ch8@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu (Mike Baker) writes:
>
>>>	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.
>>
>>You miss my point.  You won't be forcing them to pay these costs,
>you'll be paying these costs.  Any added expense to the oil companies
>will immediately translate itself to a higher price on most the stuff
>you are using.  If you want to argue that these costs will be offset by
>savings in other areas, then we should get all the numbers and compare.
> But do not think of this in terms of "forcing them to pay".  The
>"tehm" you talk about are us.
>
>Actually, you are missing the point of the author above.  He states
>that higher costs for oil will result in a level playing field for all
>energy sources.  That will make renewables more attractive.  Yes, costs
>will go up across the board, but we are paying indirect costs right
>now, in the form of pollution and future climatic change.
>
>Now if this missed an earlier point that you were trying to make, then
>I missed the earlier post.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Will Stewart

I didn't try to make any other point and I don't necessery object to the
idea of making oil more expensive (as long as this is based on real cost
estimates, not some arbitrary "how high we have to raise it to make solar
cheap in comparison").  What I did object to was the phrase "make them pay".
A statement like this creates, among less informed readers, the feeling that
you can make your energy supplier pay more without paying more yourself.  The
proper phrasing should have been "how much more we are willing to pay?"
                                                ^^


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmeron cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 19:13:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

There are a few typos in the preceding legislative language:

(1) to promote the orderly transition from the current
research and development program to a new one in which the
private sector capabilities and manages risks inherent in the
development and demonstration of fusion energy technologies
under the disciplined diversity of free enterprise while the
government continues to directly fund plasma physics
research:

"capabilities" => "capitalizes"

     (7) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a
fusion energy device, of a fission burn which consumes at
least 5% of the confined fusion fuel and which produces at
least twice the energy consumed by the fusion energy device
during the burn;

"fission" => "fusion"

     (9) "commonly available" is any fuel whose dollar
(1992) per ounce commercial price multiplied by the number
of tons of plant and equipment required to burn it perl
million watts sustained power production is a quantity less
than 10,000 dollar-tons per megawatt-ounce.

"perl" => "per"

(I've been using perl to program things A LOT lately.)

The corrected language follows (with a minor change to the disposition
 of interest income).

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:06:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <DCKwJ3.6L2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>
>In article <3vgabj$kek@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>The best policy to to be polite while maintaining integrity.  
>
>     Thanks Jack, best laugh I've had in weeks.
>
>                                 dale bass
>
>
Let me put this in context for you newcomers. When I first got on
Internet a few years ago I was immediately flamed - gang raped as it
were by dale bass, and a few others and reacted in anger.

Dale being an engineer with a mechanical cast of mind has a rather
static view of human personality and apparently has never heard of
complex adaptive systems. This is a characteristic he shares with
crackpots that he loves to label etc. Sort of pot calling the kettle
black.

Furthermore, to illustrate the sophistry in DB's rhetoric, if one looks
at my remark above "The best policy ..." It is certainly true as an
idea an objective that we mortals cannot always achieve in every
particular case. Fortunately, I had John Rawl's course in Ethics at
Cornell in the 50's where this sort of delicate distinction was
emphasized - a distinction too fine for the coarse-grained bass. :-) 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Mitchell Swartz, vocabulary genius
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz, vocabulary genius
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 17:53:32 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <jaboweryDCDsED.7F0@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim
Bowery) wrote:

> Behold I am become the national labs, the destroyer of progress in in the 
> physical sciences.
> -- 
> The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>                  Change the tools and you change the rules.

***{Jim, you got it right! Hold that thought! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / R Schumacher /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
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: 3 Aug 1995 18:37:21 -0500
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA

>In other words, if NASA and any other organization used my
>approach to computing orbits and such:

>1. The results would be more accurate.
>2. The computation would be simpler, and thus less prone to error.
>3. Much less computer resources would be needed. This is very
>   desirable in real-time and processor-intensive applications.
>4. The Babel of units and constants could be done away with.


Talk is cheap. You'd make a much better case by presenting an
actual example of such a calculation using your methods, to
demonstrate the value of it. (At least this much has been 
cleared up: you are now saying that you have a new *formalism*
for describing physics, not a new physical theory.)




cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Gregory Clark /  Re:MIT Cold Fusion Patent
     
Originally-From: greg.clark@defence.dsto.gov.au (Gregory Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:MIT Cold Fusion Patent
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 10:44:27 UNDEFINED
Organization: Defence Science Technology Organisation

Having quickly read the patent I am interested to know if the authors of the 
patent have or are in the process of publishing their results. From my initial 
reading, the patent statement never mentions the words "cold fusion".
The patent mentions radiation detectors in their experimental apparatus but no 
results. When are we to see the results of their tuning of the anharmonic 
oscillations that may potentially cause deuterium nuclei to collide, etc.


Gregory Clark

(Comments are my own, etc...)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenclark cudfnGregory cudlnClark cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 00:58:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> >Here is my message for you, Bob: since you claim that discussions of
> >gravitation are irrelevant, I take it that you know what the proper
> >explanation of "cold fusion" is, and that it lies outside the framework of
> >gravitaitonal theory. Therefore, please enlighten the rest of us. 
> 
> Since you asked here's a clue for you. If you think gravitation has
> anything to do with "cold fusion" other than holding the apparatus on the
> table you reveal your abysmal knowledge of physics and just make yourself
> look foolish. 

***{Your attitude is a perfect example of the arrogance of those who have
vested interests in the prevailing physical paradigm and of why,
historically, paradigm shifts have been resisted by myriad forms of
censorship. While the explanations for this may, ultimately, be
psychiatric, there is a wonderful quote in Gene Mallove's book, *Fire From
Ice*, which Jed Rothwell passed on to me recently:

     "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
     greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
     obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
     conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions
     which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have
     proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread,
     into the fabric of their lives."

The point here is that, in case after case, paradigm shifts have been
resisted by means both fair and foul, long after they have become obvious,
by a certain segment of the relevant "scientific" community. Thus it goes
without saying that, *before* such alternative thinking has progressed to
the point of being obvious--i.e., when it is still in the intuitive,
formative stages--these very same people will also resist it. And that is
the interesting part: when paradigm shift thinking is still in the
formative stage, it is difficult to defend, contra-intuitive to those
whose minds are steeped in the prevailing view, and virtually
indistinguishable from the ravings of crackpots and certifiable nutters.
It is thus at precisely this point that it is most vulnerable. Most
importantly, it is here that paradigm shifts must be stopped, for if they
are permitted to develop out of their infant phase and acquire the
trappings of formidability, the establishment position is doomed, and the
old paradigm is destined to be overthrown. This is why toleration and
freedom of speech are so valuable: they permit those who are intuitively
attracted to an alternative point-of-view to discuss it, develop whatever
arguments may be made for it, and, eventually, either succeed or fail,
without being censored or intimidated into silence by those who have a
vested interest in the status quo. Within the context of toleration and
freedom of speech, society manages to throw out the bath water while
keeping the baby: crackpot alternatives are unmasked and discarded, while
true improvements are adopted, to the long term benefit of everyone.
Bottom line: to further this process, we all need to cultivate an attitude
of tolerance toward the seemingly deviant ideas and intuitions of persons
who are acting in good faith. This means that if we do not agree with the
intuitions of a particular person concerning the relevance of a post, and
yet by the pattern of his behavior he seems to be posting in good faith,
we should simply let the matter pass. In other words, don't gripe at the
guy and demand that he submit to your intuitive view of what is relevant;
just skip forward to the next thread and move on. Live and let live.
--Mitchell Jones}***

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

***{To the best of my knowledge, the only way to cancel a post without the
permission of the person who made it is via a cancelbot--i.e., by
launching an internet packet that fraudulently claims to originate from
the person making the post, and states that the post being canceled was
made in error or was authored by someone else. Dieter Britz, at one point,
seemed to be claiming to have used a cancelbot, though with some
ambiguity; and, as it later turned out, he was not guilty. Your claim
seems less ambiguous than his but, in light of the prior misunderstanding,
I will ask explicitly: is this what you are claiming? If so, whose posts
did you cancel, and what is your justification for your action? Please
clue us in on this. I am sure we are all eager to understand the rationale
underlying this type of behavior. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> >Alternatively, you might avoid the risk of being hanged by not starting up
> >another time-wasting, interminable thread in which would-be censors flame,
> >and are flamed by, those who believe in freedom of speech.
> 
> Apparently, you know as little about what constitutes free speech as you
> do about physics. In the future you would do better to confine your
> posts to topics in which you have at least a modicum of education if
> such topics exist.
> 
> Mark

***{I know this for sure: free speech cannot exist on the internet if
individuals are permitted to unilaterally and fraudulently cancel the
posts of others, as you are apparently claiming to have done. Such
behavior constitutes a direct assault on the value which distinguishes the
internet from the grey uniformity of the mainstream press, and which
enables access providers to sell connect time to subscribers. If the
unilateral use of cancelbots becomes widespread, the growth of the
internet will soon cease, and companies that sell connect services to the
general public will lose vast amounts of money in the resulting shakeout.
I would therefore strongly urge your access provider to investigate the
statements that you have just made and, if it is discovered that you have
fraudulently cancelled the posts of others, I would urge that your connect
privileges be terminated. As for your closing paragraph, my reply is as
follows: (a) I frankly do not need lectures about free speech from
censorious authoritarians such as yourself, and (b) I feel confident that
your knowledge of physics parallels, both in breadth and depth, your
knowledge of, and support for, free speech. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 09:44 -0500 (EST)

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
I think the problem with this is that once the capture occurs, you will have
two neutrons, with absolutely no binding between them at all, they would fall
apart before anything else (such as fusing with another D2) could happen.  Even
if we could occasionally get a second D2 to fuse, the expected high production
of neutrons runs counter to experimential evidence.
 
-> 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.
 
I am convinced for this theory to work, it must be a 3 body reaction.  I might
note that if there is not an electron "caught in the middle" then the coulomb
repulsion of the D2 would prevent the initial fusion, so it is likely that if a
fusion does occur, you can count on an electron being caught in the middle, or
at least near enough for tunneling to take place.
 
Thanks for your comments.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Will Stewart /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 3 Aug 1995 14:30:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <DCpx8z.M9o@midway.uchicago.edu> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: 
>
>In article <3vo0pc$ch8@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu (Mike Baker) writes:

>>	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.
>
>You miss my point.  You won't be forcing them to pay these costs,
you'll be paying these costs.  Any added expense to the oil companies
will immediately translate itself to a higher price on most the stuff
you are using.  If you want to argue that these costs will be offset by
savings in other areas, then we should get all the numbers and compare.
 But do not think of this in terms of "forcing them to pay".  The
"tehm" you talk about are us.

Actually, you are missing the point of the author above.  He states
that higher costs for oil will result in a level playing field for all
energy sources.  That will make renewables more attractive.  Yes, costs
will go up across the board, but we are paying indirect costs right
now, in the form of pollution and future climatic change.

Now if this missed an earlier point that you were trying to make, then
I missed the earlier post.

Cheers,

Will Stewart
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwill1000 cudfnWill cudlnStewart cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /   /  Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide
     
Originally-From: greenday65@aol.com (Greenday65)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide
Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:04:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Gentlemen,

We are Synergy Superconductive Technologies Ltd. and are growers of and
finishers of ultrapure Magnesium Oxide substrates in sizes ranging from 1
cm.
X  1 cm. to 2" diameter X 10 (and 20) mils thickness.  Our MgO substrates
are
the wafers of preference for HTSC applications upon which you can deposit
YBCO.  Our company is also capable of supplying you our MgO coated with
YBCO
with or without lithography as per your needs.
We can be reached at Synergy@netvision.net.il
Regards,
Jeff Gabbay
President
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengreenday65 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 / Erik Francis /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 95 23:07:15 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> So it is your position that Dartmouth shouldn't be held responsible for
> disturbing posts from outside it's boundaries (that anyone with an account
> at Dartmouth could read and respond to) but the IDENTICAL post from
> within it's sacred trust territories is different?

It seems to me that you completely missed his point.  The original 
objection was that censoring Ludwig is a violation of free speech.  
Hollebeek's point, as I see it, was that since Dartmouth is paying for 
the distribution of his opinions via news, Dartmouth has complete 
control of the decision whether or not they wish Ludwig's opinions to 
continue to sent from their site or not.  That is, it's not a matter 
of free speech, it's a matter of whether or not Dartmouth is willing 
to tolerate Ludwig, which so far they apparently are.

His point, again as I see it, had _nothing_ to do with whether or not 
Ludwig's posts were good or bad, or whose fault it was that Dartmouth 
distributed his articles.  It was merely that the "right" of Ludwig's 
to post as he wish is not a right, because it has nothing to do with 
free speech.

You're free to say what you like (within certain other laws) on a 
street corner.  If I'm paying to have you broadcast across a radio 
station, then _I_ have control over what you can say, and it has 
nothing to do with free speech.  (Again, as long as it's still within 
limits of other laws.)

Besides, the bulk of your argument completely ignores the difference 
between a site carrying an article sent from another site (which 
constitutes basically all sites), and the one site from which the 
article originated.  They are two totally different things.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W   GIGO, Omega, Psi  oo  the fourth R  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-   ftmfbs   kmmfa / \
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._   Founder SBWF   http://www.spies.com/max/ \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / James Crotinger /  Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
Date: 3 Aug 95 03:23:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

> Magnetic mirror machines could be built today that would produce
> ignition a lot cheaper than ITER.

  You've got to be kidding.  The more we understood mirror machines,
the worse they looked.  I won't argue that we shouldn't reconsider
mirrors at a research level, but to state that an ignited mirror
machine could be built today is absolutly hogwash. I mean we've got
some really big ones sitting down the street, but you don't see anyone
here proposing to bring them out of mothballs. Advanced tokamaks,
spheromaks, etc., just look much more promising.

  Someone else will have to speak to EBTs. I think instabilities
killed them.

  Jim

--
 -----------------------------------------------/\---------------------------
James A. Crotinger   Lawrence Livermore N'Lab  // \  The above views are mine
crotinger@llnl.gov   P.O. Box 808;  L-630  \\ //---\  and are not necessarily
(510) 422-0259       Livermore CA  94550    \\/Amiga\  those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.01 /  Hitech /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: Hitech@voyager.cris.com (Hitech)
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 22:48:11 -0400
Organization: Concentric Internet Services

In article <3vm6p9$9c2@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>Shucks!  I was about to offer the $700 in the till to get old Ludwig 
>a mental exam.  I think we all would be interested in the result.
>

And what if Ludwig gets some crackpot doctor?  Some doctor who is not 
quite normal.  Then this whole mess will just get worse!


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenHitech cudlnHitech cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 /  sjmilitello@cc /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: sjmilitello@cc.memphis.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 2 Aug 95 10:52:15 -0500
Organization: The University of Memphis

In article <tomkDCLux9.L4y@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> In article <3vgjuv$crm@cnn.princeton.edu>,
> Tim Hollebeek <tim@handel.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> 
>>Dartmouth is footing the bill for his net access, and most likely the
>>computers his posts originate at.  They have a right to know what they
>>are paying for, and terminate his access if they disapprove of what he
>>uses it for.  I don't see where free speech figures into tho.
> 
> Dartmouth accepted _everyone's rights to free speech when they installed
> a system that could carry e-mail. With the good you also get the obsene.
> For months now I have typically ignored any posting with Plutonium's
> name on it. I don't think he adds anything to the conference and I don't
> want to read his obsenities.
> 
> So he posts from Dartmouth. All those who hold Dartmouth responsible
> may raise their hands. Any obsenity posted from any location -- and
> there are thousands of private nodes -- can find it's way onto the
> Dartmouth conputer system and into any of these unmediated conferences.
> 
> So it is your position that Dartmouth shouldn't be held responsible for
> disturbing posts from outside it's boundaries (that anyone with an account
> at Dartmouth could read and respond to) but the IDENTICAL post from
> within it's sacred trust territories is different?
> 
> Excuse me, but this is just crap. When you stick your nose into a
> conversation and hear something you don't like, either say so or
> go away. You don't try to have the government remove a person's
> larynx.
> 
> What a bunch of cowards! Try facing the reality of the world for a change.
> 

Perhaps this is naive but there is a simple solution to all of this. IGNORE AP
- don't read his posts and under no circumstances, reply to any. He might go
away and if he doesn't, what do you care - you've freed the boards from what
appears to be an infinity of replies to his posts and you removedyour own
personal aggravation over his views. 

Personally, I really don't care what happens since I never bother to read any
ramblings by or related to AP and I've developed fairly good skill at avoiding
such posts all together.

Definitely Amused,

Bob

> 
>>Tim Hollebeek        |"What is love? 'tis not hereafter; Present mirth hath
>>PChem Grad Student   |present laughter; What's to come is still unsure: In
>>Princeton University |delay there lies no plenty; Then come kiss me, sweet and
>>---------------------|twenty, Youth's a stuff will not endure." -Twelfth Night
> 
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensjmilitello cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 02 Aug 1995 23:31:33 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <3vhlb6$1hi@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Martin Sevior <msevior@physi
s.unimelb.edu.au> writes:

  > Once employed in the breeder mode, the Earths Uranium resources
  > are sufficient to last indefinately.

   Actually, to get more than a century or so, assuming reasonable
growth rates in energy consumption you need to use both uranium and
thorium.  Fortunately, molten salt reactors are a technical solution
which breed fuel from thorium.  As an added bonus, the amount of
(radioactive) waste produced per quad (10^12 BTU) is significantly
less than for other nuclear reactors.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 03 Aug 1995 00:05:52 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <3vghac$bem@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:

 >  (7) The Alternative Concepts method:  try looking for a device other
 >  than the tokamak which may get you to ignition for less cost.
 >	   Advantage:  could be a lot cheaper/faster/better; a lot
 >			   of old ideas weren't fully explored.
 >	   Disadvantage:  could just be pie-in-the-sky; hard to think
 >			   of really new ideas after 40 years.

   Bob!  Please, it may be hard to think of truely new ideas after
forty years, but there are several that were sacrificed to the altar
of almighty tokamaks that don't need to be new.  They were (and are)
very promising but never seriously tested.  Magnetic mirror machines
could be built today that would produce ignition a lot cheaper than
ITER.  A Z machine might even be economical.  (My thinking has always
been that any commercial magnetic confinement fusion plant would
combine magnetic mirror and stellarator geometries, but that is a
detail.)  Also what ever happened to Elmo Bumpy Toruses?  It might be
interesting to simulate one using some of the computational horsepower
available today.

--

					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 / Hauke Reddmann /  Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
     
Originally-From: fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SCI PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ
Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:10:46 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Hey guys, this is all good material for a Mel Brooks movie about the
: Internet.  I am getting a good chuckle reading some of the more recent
: exchanges. :-)

But it would get rated "X" as everybody tells that Archies posts were
pornographic. (Rats, my LVIEW seems to fail. I haven't found a single
naked singularity!)
--
Hauke Reddmann   fc3a501@rzaixsrv2.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenfc3a501 cudfnHauke cudlnReddmann cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 04:46:11 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3vo0pc$ch8@news.doit.wisc.edu>, baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu
(Mike Baker) writes:
>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.

You miss my point.  You won't be forcing them to pay these costs, you'll be 
paying these costs.  Any added expense to the oil companies will immediately
translate itself to a higher price on most the stuff you are using.  If you want
to argue that these costs will be offset by savings in other areas, then we
should get all the numbers and compare.  But do not think of this in terms of
"forcing them to pay".  The "tehm" you talk about are us.

Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmeron cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / A Anderson /  Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 05:02:06 GMT
Organization: Mide Services

I know nothing of the technicalities, so I can afford to talk "rubbish":

    The Tokamak is sooooo elegant!

    Can you imagine a UFO landing in Monument Valley powered by 
_magnetic mirror_ reactors?  They'd have to have been _banished_ from
their planet for lack of style to do that!  


Q.E.D.
-- 
// Alexander Anderson                         Computer Science Student //
// Home Fone    : +44 (0) 171-794-4543            Middlesex University //
// Home Email   : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk                Bounds Green //
// College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk                          London //
//                                                                  UK //

cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug  4 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
