1995.08.04 /  parsec@worf.ne /  deja' vu - what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: deja' vu - what to do with $700
Date: 4 Aug 1995 10:23:17 GMT
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <3vm6p9$9c2@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:

>On the $700, I have not yet been able to get Scott Little to say he
>will take it.

He's certainly earned it.  But failing that...  

>If you all don't figure out how to spend it by the end
>of the year, I will have to go on a big drunk or something and my 
>health won't stand it.

By all means we must preserve you from the corrupting influence of 
the demon rum.  (And spare Batavia the prospect of inebriated Droege
brothers, possibly taking a renewed interest in nitroglycerine...
pipe bomb rockets thundering and lighting up the sky:)

I would prefer we NOT spend it investigating another O/U claim.

In a Sept '93 post Jim Bowery describes researches based on the
ITT/Farnsworth device and other schemes: 

"A few others are doing "garage" type operations -- only slightly
below the level of effort going into PLASMAC(tm), and IEF.
...
They don't read s.p.f.  They're too busy trying to stay afloat and
still make progress on virtually no money.  They must bring the 
risk down to the point that money will come in from SOMEWHERE."

So perhaps some hot fusion initiative is conducted on a scale where
$700 would mean something.    



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparsec cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solar/fusion
Date: 03 Aug 1995 15:30:45 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


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.)

     Now if the solar collectors convert 15% of the incident solar
radiation into electricity, and the collector does not significantly
change the reflection and reradiation characteristics of the area,
that is 15% LESS energy that goes into global warming.  Of course,
when that electricity is used, it will probably be converted back into
heat and maintain the balance. (Current solar arrays reflect and
reradiate more incident and IR energy back into space during the day,
but reradiate less at night, so that part usually cancels out.)

     With sufficiently good climate models--which we don't currently
have--you could tailor solar power systems to air condition the
planet.  Collect energy where it is unwanted and move it as
electricity to the colder areas.

     In any case, using solar power to generate electricity does not
contribute to global warming.

--

					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 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
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: 4 Aug 1995 11:17:30 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3vr2rs$9ml@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I didn't like the phrase "shakes head in despair"
>regardless to whom it was directed.

Translation from Potter-speak into English:  "I can dish it out, but I 
can't take it."
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / 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: 4 Aug 1995 11:50:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3vs6ph$k8b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
ZoltanCCC <zoltanccc@aol.com> wrote:

>>Have you calculated the velocity at which a 3 MeV electron is moving?

>No I have not, but I would appretiate any assistance you or anybody else
>can give in this case. I assume the emitted electron's energy is below the
>critical T for Palladium, which simply means that ionization will dominate
>over bremsstrahlung scattering. (critical T is about 560/Z for Z>5) This
>means that we will have gamma and other photon emission.

Well, you can do it the easy way:
(1-(v/c)^2)^(-1/2) = (3.511/0.511) = 6.871 for a 3 MeV electron
and solve for v.
Or you can do it the hard way using the relativistic energy formula.
In either case, I get something over 0.98c.  Although if you do it the
hard way, you get a really impressive number for the momentum of the
electron -- momentum, I assume, that has to be conserved somewhere.

The point I am trying to make, of course, is that the one thing that
all of the CF people agree on is that CF produces either no energy other
than heat, or only a very small amount of high-energy radiation.
Remember that Mitchell Swartz came up with this "Moessbauer" mechanism
to explain how all of the excitation energy can go into phonons, and
none into high-energy photons.  Since you already agree that your 
hypothesis predicts copious amounts of high-energy radiation, I would
say that it's probably not worth pursuing (and this is quite aside from
any of the numerous more fundamental objections to it).
--
					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:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Johan Wevers /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 03:54:16 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

Charles E. Reese <reese@chem.duke.edu> wrote:

>The process for making solor cells
>will also be (relativly) cheap when comparable quantities are being made.

I don't know this. The group where I graduated did some work on plasma
deposition of Si to reduce the costs of solar cell production. The vapour
deposition used now has the disadvantage that the production rate is slow,
so the units have to remain very long in the vacuum vessel. These machine
costs pull the price. Plasma deposition should be cheaper but the produced
amorphous Si was unstable, I believe it had something to do with O_2
penetrating the structure but they were not sure.

Anyway, I believe that the prices would not benefit much from scaling the
equipment up.

>There was a Scientific American article about solar cells a couple of years
>ago with a chart showing the projected prices over a couple of decades.

I don't believe it. You can't predict when a breakthrough will result in a
more efficient production process.

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / MNR BREUER /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: s9520155@cs.sun.ac.za (MNR F BREUER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 4 Aug 1995 15:06:20 GMT
Organization: University of Stellenbosch

Hi!

I have this little hunch that Dartmouth has a _reason_ for giving Pu net
access: That way he spends his time unloading his drivel on the net rather
than pestering the guys back home :)

Cheers,
Flo.
--
 --------------------------------------------------------------
- Remember to look both ways before crossing the Info Highway -
- Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my brain?     -
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudens9520155 cudfnMNR cudlnBREUER cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Bob Casanova /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:51:46 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <DCqKCs.466@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
>Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:05:14 GMT

>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!

Win? You can't break even! And you're not allowed to quit the game...

Seriously, though, my point was that discarding the "waste" is the wrong 
approach, as we have no idea what uses will be found for it in the future.


>>>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) *



Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 10:58:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vm7be$lkb@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0108951119550001@199.172.8.155>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> >During the test, the flow rate of the water held steady
> >at 5.382 gallons/min. Thus the heat added to the water by the device in an
> >hour was 5.382 times 60 times 8.3 times 67.86, which gives 181,881 BTUšs
> >per hour. 
> 
> What was the temperature of the water at the flow meter?
> --
>                                         Richard Schultz
>              "an optimist is a guy
>               that has never had
>               much experience"

If memory serves, Jed said that the flow was measured on the input side of
the system. Thus the closest thermocouple to it would have been one of the
six on the input side, which had the following readings in degrees F:

        80.73

        80.39

        80.05

        80.15

        80.52

        80.54

As you can see, it really doesn't matter which of these readings was
closest to the point of flow measurement, since the variation among them
is less than half a degree, and since the deviation from the collective
average (80.39) is less than a third of a degree. Bottom line: there is no
way anything that happens in the vicinity of the flow measurement could
impact the accuracy of the temperature measurements. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 11:00:10 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vqv2q$6rt@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

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

It's called the "Hydrosonic Pump," and it is used to heat water by
stirring it. To build one, get yourself a piece of aluminum pipe, say 12"
in diameter, and cut off a 6" section. This will become the "rotor." Drill
a lot of holes in it with an electric drill so it looks like a piece of
Swiss cheese, and then mount it on the shaft of a synchronous, 3-phase AC
electric motor so that the axis of rotation runs down the center of the
section of pipe. Seal the rotor inside a water-tight housing which has
been fitted with input and output water connections, and turn on the
motor, so that the rotor begins spinning inside the sealed, water-tight
housing. Next, turn on the water, so that it begins to flow through the
housing while the rotor is spinning. Result: the friction between the
surface of the spinning rotor and the water has two effects: (a) it heats
the water, and (b) it creates millions of tiny cavitation voids in the
water, due to the enormous turbulence as the water passes through the
holes in the rotor. It has been theorized by some that the excess heat
produced by the device arises because thermonuclear fusion reactions are
induced by the enormous overpressures that build up inside the collapsing
cavitation voids. (In my view, this explanation is incorrect: the
resulting radiation would kill the experimenters. In fact, no radiation is
produced whatsoever.) That, in essence, is the way it works. (By the way,
I do not advise that you build such a device yourself. An improperly
constructed rotor could explode due to centrifugal forces, and there is
also danger that an improperly constructed rotor housing could explode if
the water flashed to steam. The above description is provided only to give
you a mental picture of what is being discussed.)

Anyway, if you had such a device, you could place temperature probes in
the input and output water streams, measure power consumption and water
flow, and thereby replicate the experiment described in my earlier
article. You would have to have a properly constructed device--e.g., one
manufactured by Griggs--and you would have to use the proper operating
parameters (rotor r.p.m., fluid flow, input fluid temperature), in order
to replicate his experiment, but it could presumably be done by anyone who
was interested. Unfortunately, none of the government certified "fusion
scientists" with whom I am familiar has shown any interest in doing
anything other than beating their gums about it. They "know" it can't
possibly produce more heat than it consumes, so why should they waste any
taxpayer money attempting a replication? (These are the frugal guys who
brought us our wonderful "hot fusion" power--you know: the power that
comes to you virtually free via your local electric utility--at a cost of
only $100 billion in R & D money looted from the taxpayers! With a success
like that under their belts, who among us would dare to doubt their
judgment?)

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones 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 19:19:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

REPLACEMENT OF
PUBLIC LAW 96-389, sec 3 CHAPTER 101 -- 
FUSION ENERGY ENGINEERING


(Author's note:  For a legislative history and purpose see
1980 U.S. Code Gong. And Adm. News. P. 3336.)

Sec 9301.  Congressional findings and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress hereby finds that --

     (1) the United States and the world would enjoy
enormous and critically needed benefits from the commercial
availability of environmentally clean and virtually
inexhaustible sources of energy;

     (2) in theory, the fusion of light atomic nuclei can
provide the basis for such energy sources;

     (3) the concept of fusion energy based on the
confinement of high temperature plasmas has been the subject
of ongoing government-funded research and development for
over three decades;

     (4) during these decades our understanding of high
temperature plasmas has progressed to the point that, with
appropriate government incentives, the tradition of 
diversity and risk management in our free enterprise system
can expand the frontiers of fusion energy technology at a 
rate far greater and at a cost far lower than centrally
planned programs funded by the government alone;

     (5) progress in fusion energy systems is currently
limited by a the lack of a diversity in technical approaches
being explored;

     (6) to ensure the timely commercialization of fusion
energy systems, the United States Government must create an
environment in which the inherent commercial rewards of
fusion energy technology are leveraged by supplementary
Federal funds so as to motivate many diverse inventors and
investors in the private sector who will freely and rapidly
develop the frontiers of fusion energy technology;

     (7) it is vital that the Federal Government continue
its direct financial support for scientific research in the
physics of high temperature plasmas as this creates
fundamental new knowledge of immense value which cannot be
patented or reasonably treated as intellectual property;

     (8) it is a proper role for the Federal Government to
stimulate accelerated commercial investment in the 
development and demonstration of fusion energy technologies;
and

     (9) the stimulation of commercial investment in the
development of fusion technology can be accelerated through
the award of cash prizes to entrepreneurs achieving
significant technical milestones and the granting of funds
matching those put at risk by private investors.

(b) It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United
States and the purpose of this chapter to stimulate
commercial investment in the development and demonstration
of fusion energy systems and continued scientific research
into the physics of high temperature plasmas.  Further, it
is declared to be the policy of the United States and the
purpose of this chapter that the objectives of such a
program shall be --

     (1) to promote the orderly transition from the current
research and development program to a new one in which the
private sector capitalizes 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:

     (2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion
energy technology by awarding substantial prizes for
significant technical achievement and matching private
investment with public grants;

     (3) to, over time, systematically remove public support
for private investment in fusion energy development and
demonstration commensurate with the removal of barriers to
commercial deployment of fusion energy systems;

     (4) to continue international cooperation in plasma
science for the benefit of all nations;

     (5) to give preferential treatment to aneutronic fusion
cycles;

     (6) to give preferential treatment to fusion cycles
that make use of readily available fuels;

     (7) to stimulate the commercial deployment of
competitive fusion energy sources; and

     (8) to demonstrate that United States science in
partnership with commercially financed technology
development and operation continues the tradition of world
leadership in science and technology.


Sec. 9302.  Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter --

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

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

     (3) "Secretary" means Secretary of Energy;

     (4) "scientific research" means activities that
discover knowledge about natural phenomena, which, under
existing statute, cannot be held as intellectual property
via patent;

     (5) "scientific knowledge" means knowledge acquired or
discovered through scientific research;

     (6) "development" means the acquisition of knowledge or
reduction to practice of an invention which does not exist
in nature and which has some practical value or which has 
value as intellectual property under patent law or other
statutes;

     (7) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a
fusion energy device, of a fusion 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;

     (8) "commercial break-even" means the self-sustaining
operation of a fusion energy device by feeding its power
output back to its power input without the need for any
outside energy input except fuel;

     (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 per
million watts sustained power production is a quantity less
than 10,000 dollar-tons per megawatt-ounce.

     (10) "energetically aneutronic" means any fuel which,
when burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron
radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced
energy;

     (11) "environmentally aneutronic" means any fuel which,
when burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron
radiation carrying away less than 1% of the produced energy;


Sec. 9303.  Program activities

  (a) Scientific research in areas where lack of knowledge
      limits the development of fusion energy systems;

     (1) The Secretary shall periodically survey commercial
participants in fusion energy technology development or
potential investors in same to determine critical gaps in
scientific knowledge;

     (2) The Secretary shall initiate scientific research
emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge as determined from
the survey of commercial developers and investors;

     (3) The Secretary shall fully disclose to the public
all discoveries made in the course of government-funded
research under this program;

     (4) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, convene an
independent panel, no member of which may have received 
Federal funds for fusion-related research or development in
the last 5 years nor served on the panel in the last 5 
years, to review scientific research activities to ensure
Federal plasma physics funds are not being used for
patentable fusion technology development purposes instead of
unpatentable scientific research into plasma physics;

     (5) If the independent review panel determines an
activity is development rather than research, the Federal
funds used for such development must be repaid to the United
States Treasury to reduce the federal debt;

     (6) Physicists receiving income from government-funded
fusion energy research or development prior to the enactment
of this legislation are to be awarded an annual grant for
the next 5 years equal to their average annual income
derived from Federally-funded fusion energy programs over 
the last 5 years, up to a limit of $60,000(1992) per year,
the purpose of which is to recognize their commitment and
contribution to the field and to aid in their transition to
the new funding environment; and

     (7) Commercial Fusion Enterprises, as defined in
9303.b.1 may enjoin the government from continuing to 
directly fund scientific research in plasma physics which
they believe to be in competition with their efforts to
develop fusion technology.

  (b) The stimulation of commercial investment in fusion
      technology development;

     (1) Any private, for profit, business owned or
controlled by United States persons which is primarily
engaged in the development of fusion technology qualifies as
a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.

     (2) Every U.S. citizen possessing a patent for a fusion
energy system is to be provided with full reimbursement of
all tax-deductible expenses incurred in the pursuit of 
their patent, up to a maximum of $100,000; the purpose of
which is to assist the inventor in the pursuit of private
financing of further development of the patented technology
under the incentives of the current Act.

     (3) Any facility owned or controlled by United States
persons generally used by Commercial Fusion Enterprises and
primarily used for the development of fusion technology
qualifies as a Commercial Fusion Center and also as a
Commercial Fusion Enterprise.

     (4) Commercial Fusion Enterprises shall receive
matching funds from the government for each private
investment they make toward the development of fusion
technology.

     (5) Funds provided by the government, as well as the
private funds they match, shall be used to develop fusion
energy technology.  Failure to use such funds to develop
fusion energy technology shall render the Commercial Fusion
Enterprise liable for such damages and criminal penalties as
are warranted under the existing statutes against securities
fraud currently enforced by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission.

     (6) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund, which
is hereby established, and whose contents are to be invested
in 30 year Treasury instruments and whose disbursements are
to be administered by the National Academy of Engineering.

     (7) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle burning an
energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (8) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle burning an
environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (9) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering break-even using a cycle
burning a commonly available energetically aneutronic fuel
shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy 
Trust Fund.

     (10) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate engineering-break-even using a cycle 
burning a commonly available environmentally aneutronic fuel
shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy
Trust Fund.

     (11) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (12) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle
burning an energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (13) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle
burning an environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (14) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate commercial break-even using a cycle burning a 
commonly available energetically aneutronic fuel shall 
receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust 
Fund.

     (15) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to 
demonstrate commercial break-even using a cycle burning a 
commonly available environmentally aneutronic fuel shall 
receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust 
Fund.

     (16) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate engineering break-even at power densities above
1 million watts per ton of equipment shall receive a 
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

     (17) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even at power densities above 1
million watts per ton of equipment shall receive a
$100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy Trust fund.

     (18) Interest income on the Fusion Energy Trust Fund
shall be used to increase the value of all unawarded prizes.

     (19) One year after this bill becomes law, The 
Secretary shall hold a series of 10 monthly publicly
advertised auctions.  At each auction 10 kilograms of
Helium-3 will be sold to the highest bidder.  The winning
bidder must:

     a) be a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.
     b) not have already won a previous auction.
     c) not have cross-ownership with any other Commercial
Fusion Enterprise that has already won at a previous 
auction.
     d) have a board of directors and officers that do not
overlap with the board of directors and officers of any 
other Commercial Fusion Enterprise that has already won at
a previous auction and;
     e) not have more than 10% of its ownership in common
with any other Commercial Fusion Enterprise that has already
won at a previous auction.

     (20) The Secretary shall make 100 acres of the Nevada
nuclear test range available to Commercial Fusion
Enterprises.  This land shall:

     a) cost no more than $1000 per month to lease per acre,
including all user fees.
     b) be remote enough that the instantaneous release of 1 
gram of tritium gas per month will pose no significant 
health risk to those outside the test range.
     c) be located on land suitable for construction.
     d) have paved access to the center of the 100 acre
area.


Sec. 9304  International cooperation

Scientific research, as defined specifically in this act,
being of a limited and nonproprietary nature, shall be
conducted in a spirit of academic freedom and openness
wherein scientists shall freely cooperate and communicate
with other scientists without regard to national boundaries.
It is the intent of Congress that the State Department take
action to facilitate the free international exchange of such
purely scientific information and work.


Sec. 9305.  Dissemination of information

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

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


Sec. 9306.  Annual report

     As a separate part of the annual report submitted 
pursuant to section 7321 of this title, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress an annual report of activities pursuant
to this chapter.  Such report shall include --

     (a) a list of recent discoveries in plasma
physics as funded under this chapter;

     (b) a list of Commercial Fusion Enterprises, their
levels of capitalization, Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize
applications and Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize awards;

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

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


Sec. 9307.  Authorization of appropriations; contract 
authority

     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993,
such sums as are provided in the annual authorization Act
pursuant to section 7270 of this title.

-- 
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 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Doug Merritt /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 19:21:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3vojno$5je@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>I beg to differ. Communication technology is on the verge of eliminating
>many of the advantages of large urban centers.

This is true, but there are other advantages that are not decreasing.

Various forms of telecommunication cannot entirely displace the
advantages of face to face meetings for business and social purposes,
although they help decrease the absolute necessity in *some* cases.
And the speed, cost, and convenience of commercial transportation/
delivery is better in centralized settings. A similar phenomenon
is true when it is the buyer who needs to be transported (e.g.
a mall shopper who needs to browse rather than order from online
catalog).

There's also the argument that sheer square area of land is better
devoted to agriculture, solar power, and to wilderness preservation,
and recreation parks, than it is used for housing. So that's another
counterforce working to preserve urbanization.

>In any event one
>can use solar energy to manufacture fuels such as hydrogen which can
>be transported economically.

Yep. I agree with the rest of your post, too; good points.
	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 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Roger Ivie /  Re: Re:MIT Cold Fusion Patent
     
Originally-From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re:MIT Cold Fusion Patent
Date: 4 Aug 95 09:31:12 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <greg.clark.21.00952575@defence.dsto.gov.au>, greg.clark@defe
ce.dsto.gov.au (Gregory Clark) writes:
> 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.

The article I read in the Deseret News quoted the inventors as saying the
excess heat was _not_ do to fusion and that while the apparatus may make
fusion more likely, it would still be insignificant.
-- 
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie      | "Did you know the AIDS spore can live in sweaters?"
ivie@cc.usu.edu |          -- Overheard at Hansen Planetarium
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenivie cudfnRoger cudlnIvie cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 4 Aug 1995 13:06:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In the standard reaction an energetic neutron is generated which is fast
and instantly leaves the lattice. It can be detected easily. I think we
would have thermal neutrons if the electrons that collide with the D
nuclei have barely enough energy to cause electron capture. Of course all
of what I write is highly speculative and may be totally impossible, I
realize that. I think thermal neutrons are good for promoting other
reactions and they are also hard to detect. Perhaps they don't leave the
lattice at all. On the other hand if we have thermal neutrons that promote
other reactions I don't know why we don't have more normal reactions that
emit high energy neutrons and protons.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / A Anderson /  Re: Cartesian Coordinate Problem
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cartesian Coordinate Problem
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 02:06:13 GMT
Organization: Mide Services

Mr. Sanderson,

    Sorry, that last answer may have sounded patronizing.  I habitually 
thought I was answering a question in comp.lang.c++.



Sandy
-- 
// 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:
cuddy04 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Bob Casanova /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 17:01:40 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <3vqckp$ule@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
>Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
>Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:41:13 GMT

>Bob Casanova (cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com) wrote:

>|> 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.

>I would like to see someone estimate the cost per kW-hr of sealing the
>waste in these glass bricks.  That is a nontrivial industrial process.

Admittedly, a point. However, you'd also need to get an estimate on the costs 
of dumping the waste into a subduction zone or lofting it into solar orbit, 
which are two alternate proposals I've seen, for comparison. And for any other 
solution.


>--
>Mach's gut!
>Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / todd spindler /  Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide
     
Originally-From: spindler@heron.rsmas.miami.edu (todd spindler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide
Date: 4 Aug 1995 13:17:23 -0400
Organization: Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science


In article <3vqoht$4th@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, greenday65@aol.com
(Greenday65) writes:
>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
>

That's all well and good, but does it use DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE?
-- 
Todd Spindler               Dept. of Meteorology & Phys. Oceanography
TSpindler@rsmas.miami.edu   Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmos. Science
TSpin42@aol.com             Miami, FL  USA   
ObQuote: Eagles soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines. -Elf
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenspindler cudfntodd cudlnspindler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / 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: 3 Aug 1995 14:15:50 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Johan Wevers (johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Paul Budnik <paul@mtnmath.com> wrote:

: >With wide spread use prices will fall much more rapidly

: I agree with this.

: >and efficiencies will increase significantly.

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

Specialized solar cells have achieved nearly 30% efficiency. Existing
inexpensive panels are much lower. The efficient cells use two different
processes so they can efficiently use a larger portion of the spectrum.
Increases in efficiency are more problematic and less predictable than
decreases in cost but it is a reasonable expectation that cheap cells
will, with enough economic incentives, meet and exceed the
efficiency of the best experimental cells today.

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

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

As I said Business Week expects it to happen in many urban areas around
the year 2000. The cost of solar power has been steadily declining and
it is not a crap shoot to make such predictions. If the environmental
costs of fossil fuels were factored in solar would be cheaper today.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Doug Merritt /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
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: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 19:31:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3vr2rs$9ml@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>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.

Last month I asked for an example of this, and am still hoping for
one. You know...compute an orbit and show how you do it and how
it's better than older approaches.

Orbital mechanics is a hairy business, and if you've got some
improvements, they'd be easy to "sell" to people, even if the
rest of your program is not.

>I welcome inquiries from companies, engineers and programmers who
>are fighting time or processor constraints in real-time applications.

That would be me, and every other professional programmer in existence.
So *specifically*, tell me how to program better. I don't see
any applications of your theory of cycles here, since my programming
does not involve any physical constants (I do compilers, operating
systems, neural nets, combinatorial algorithms, genetic algorithms,
etc etc).

I hope that you have something specific in mind, and not abstract
philosophy; I'm willing to try out a specific methodology or
algorithm.

If you're instead just talking about the philosophy that cycles
are fundamental to the universe, well, I've got the I Ching,
have read about Buddhist theories of the Great Wheel of Reincarnation,
and I've got Fourier Analysis, so I'd agree, but wouldn't think
you had anything new.

Speaking of Fourier stuff, I'd think you'd be pretty big on that,
what with the cycle tie-in and all.
	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 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / A Plutonium /  Re: Dust Cloud Theory of Solar System/Expanding Earth
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.geo.geology,sci.physic
,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dust Cloud Theory of Solar System/Expanding Earth
Date: 4 Aug 1995 19:20:23 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <AC47CC7A9668D8A4B@mcclure.demon.co.uk>
malcolm@mcclure.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McClure) writes:

> In summary, the jigsaw fit between the two continents is near-perfect for
> short stretches, but fails abysmally over the thousands of miles between
> Cape Town and the Ivory Coast ON A GLOBE OF THE PRESENT DIAMETER.
> However, the fit is practically perfect on both the small and the large
> scales if plates of the present shape and dimensions are draped on a globe
> having approx. 80% of the present earth's diameter.
> QED.

  Great,this most definitely needs to be published. I imagine, but I
could be wrong that the experts of earlier geologic time periods, say
Devonian, say Cambrian, or any inbetween Precambrian and Mr. McClure's
expert analysis of the  Cretaceous would be a more difficult study?  I
am no geologist, please correct me if wrong, but I am guessing that the
further back in the geologic time one goes the less of an accurate type
of "McClure study" would be available. Or am I wrong? I hope I am
wrong.

  Gentleman, you all realize that the Growing Earth theory dispels the
Dust Cloud theory, the planetissemal Dust Nebula theory which is
repressively hounded into the heads of students of geology and
astronomy. And I hope that geology will have increased their speed in
reporting and accepting. For I still see textbooks saying that the
dinosaurs are cold blooded whereas beyond reasonable doubt, vascular
canals proves dinosaurs were hot blooded. And I need not cite the
history of Wegener, that was a pathetic treatment of true science. So,
gentleman, let us try to show the world that geology as a science
community itself learns to be better

   As more and more of these "truth is in the mounting observational
data" come to light concerning Growing Earth. The clincher will be an
accurate Earth mass measurement one year to another, subtract out all
extraterrestrial incoming mass, and the difference is the spontaneous
neutron materialization as per Dirac,Plutonium

   Mr. McClure, the circumnavigation of the poles can be accurately
predicted by the Growing Earth model. I like to call it the Growing
Earth instead of the Expanding Earth, but whether the science
literature will accept my terminology is unknown. But the word
"growing" conveys nonconservation of energy mass whereas the Expanding
Earth conveys only that the diameter is increasing as time goes on but,
perhaps only from incoming extraterrestrial. Growing conveys much more
of what is going on.

   Also, before this true science fact races forward, there is a danger
in what to call the "seed ball" of a planet or a star. I am scouting
the Quantum Physics field to look for a appropriate term. The very best
I can come up with so far is "Schroedinger dot seed ball". This is the
locus in the Atom Whole where newly created particles come into
existence and grow a planet or star. The difference between a Sun seed
ball and the Earth seed ball is that star seed ball creates new
neutrons much faster than planet does.

   The planets magnetism is connected directly with seed balls and the
creation of new matter or neutrons. Thus the Earth has a magnetic field
in direct proportion with how rapidly new matter is created inside the
Earth.

   Someone at one of the Universities can easily take a miniature model
of the Earth. Have the experiment accrete new matter to the model.
Model rotating about axis and revolving. Using Maxwell equations, those
scientists will observe the poles or axis shift and circumnavigation of
the poles as the ever increasing matter of that Earth model.  
Equations can be got. From those equations and taking the birth of
Earth at 5 billion years one can predict the location of the poles say
in Silurian time or Pennsylvanian times.  This is a beautiful
predication and circumstances of a Growing Earth theory

  Some sci.physics.fusion people are watching this conversation. Funny,
how cold fusion will be proved not by hot headed labs nor by beakers of
water. Funny how the science of cold fusion will get its first
approval-of-reality by you geologists out there.  Cold fusion is a form
of Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization (rsnm)  , pronounced
resin like in pine tree resin or of amber

Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization  Dirac-Plutonium 
copyright
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: What is hemoglobin doing here?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is hemoglobin doing here?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 17:58:51 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DC80nI.EC9@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>   In Message-ID: <3uvv9m$gsf@agate.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: What is hemoglobin doing here?
> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) demonstrates
> how little he knows.
> 
> Mr Schultz wrote:
>   >  Au contraire.  The "R" and "T" refer to "relaxed" and "taut" and
>   >are a great simplification dealing with tertiary structure.
>   >  Apparently, Mr. Schultz could not answer.
> =rpes "(1) "R" and "T" refer to "relaxed" and "tense," not "relaxed" and
"taut"
> =rpes (2) In the usual parlance, "R" and "T" refer to quaternary, not
tertiary,
> =rpes structure (although there is a tertiary structure associated with each
> =rpes of the quaternary structures, and one can consider the effects on the 
> =rpes kinetics of intermediates that have a "t" tertiary structure but an
> =rpes "R" quarternary structure -- indeed, it is commonly accepted that the
> =rpes changes in quaternary structure are driven at least in part by tertiary
> =rpes  relaxation).
> 
>   Unlikely.
>    The quaternary structure refers to the aggregation, that
> is, polymerization.   Oxygenated hemoglobin is a dimer.
> Hemoglobin is a tetramer in the deoxygenated (purple) state.
> 
> The oxygen cause a change in the tertiary structure and upon
> oxygenation (orange color) the material becomes a dimer
> which is a new quaternary state.
> 
>   (Hb)4  +   4O2  ------->    changes in tertiary then
>                            quart. structure  -------->  2    (HbO2)2
> 
>    Mr. Schultz got this wrong, true to his form.
> 
>     Perhaps he would care to comment
> why even this is an approximation?
>    Or how the electronic state is involved?
> 
>    More likely he cant answer, and
> since he got this wrong, true to his form,
> and since he knows nothing about
> cold fusion, Mr. Schultz's  "peculiar and a fishlike smell" to
> which he refers and personally caries about,
> is now explained in toto.
> 
>    Mitchell Swartz
> 
>    ===========================
> "I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
> the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
>   [Richard Schultz, Princeton and Berkeley, 22 Jun 1995]


The relevant equation here, in my view, is the following:

Swa + Sch ----->  HbO2

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / A Plutonium /  Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
Date: 4 Aug 1995 20:44:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <21cenlogic-0308951445510001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> ***{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}***

  I don't know which side of CF you are on Mitchell, whether for or
against or straddling the fence. It was the systematic attack on me
that crossed the bounds of acceptable behaviour. How would you like it
if someone singled you out and every week posted a paragraph that you
are mentally ill. 
  Your advice is reasonable for most posts, but in this case there was
damages. I had a physics journal annul my reserved space during the
time Mr. Merriman attacked me. And it is a sad comment on our times.
Are we to let the Internet be "worse" interaction between people than
if people were face to face? I mean, if at a CCF convention speaker Mr.
Merriman lectures on what he thought of my mental health would not be
tolerated for one instant. So are we to let the Internet tolerate all
behavior and call it freedom of speech. I say the Internet really  
should not be many levels degenerate below the conduct of persons
face-to-face.
   No, Mitchell, damages were done. And I am offering him a very easy
way out of 500 bucks to post a health checkup. Has Mr. Merriman ever
posted any of his personal financial situation. I do not know, but if
he has, my guess would be that what he claims his financial (note
claims) standing is and the 500 bucks is at odds. And of the approx 50
attacks on my character, 500 divided by 50 is merely 10 bucks a post.
No, it will cost me that much to have those medicals
   Your line of reasoning Mitchell reminds me of a commentator back in
the late 1700's who following this Boston tea tax would protest against
the colonists saying. Pay the tax, why get so riled up over something
like a penny tax, my gosh
   Mitchell I would appreciate it if you knew the names of the lawyers
who defended the European physicist. Please email 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Richard Schultz /  Sayonara and Toodles
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Sayonara and Toodles
Date: 4 Aug 1995 22:18:40 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe


Just to let my faithful readers (both of them) know that I will be
away from Usenet for at least a month (and possibly forever) (you
can stop cheering now).  This account (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)
is scheduled to be toasted Monday morning, 7 August.  My other account,
schultz@chemvax.princeton.edu, will remain active until at least 
1 October, although I may not have access to it until 10 September.
I state this because I didn't want to leave the several, umm, discussions
in which I have been involved in these newsfroups in medias res (in
mitn drinnen for s.c.j.) and leave people with the impression that I
was running away.  If you have any comments on any of my recent posts,
please email them to schultz@chemvax.princeton.edu.  I will see them,
eventually.  Thanks.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / The Brain /  NMHSSCC Project - PLEASE HELP
     
Originally-From: The Brain <gdo@zynet.zynet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NMHSSCC Project - PLEASE HELP
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:48:00 -0600
Organization: ZyNet Southwest

I am a High school student from New Mexico and I am doing a New Mexico 
High School Supercomputing Challenge project on cold fusion, and I was 
wondering if anyone here could help me out as to books that I should 
read, or other such things. What I'm primarily interested in is projects 
that I could do on a supercomputer, because that is the focus of the 
Challenge.  Thanks in advance!

Gabriel Ortiz
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengdo cudfnThe cudlnBrain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / 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: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 16:27 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> The point I am trying to make, of course, is that the one thing that
-> all of the CF people agree on is that CF produces either no energy other
-> than heat, or only a very small amount of high-energy radiation.
 
That is not true.  I have read several places that X-Ray film is fogged by
CF experiments.  That implys X-Rays, and seems to support the notion that
Bremsstrahlung radiation could be a factor.
 
                                                          Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / David Naugler /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 5 Aug 1995 02:17:50 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:
> 
>One of the primary problems in CF is that experimental measurements have shown
>that there are few or no neutrons generated.  Normally when 2 D2 fuse you get
>neutrons.  Your explaination generates high quantities of neutrons.  An
>explaination that fits the experimental data requires that few or no neutrons
>are generated. Standard theory predicts neutrons already.
>                                                                Marshall
> 

My understanding is that it is the requirements of energy and momentum
conservation that determine the outcome of two body collisions. When two bodies
collide and release energy, at least two other bodies must fly apart for
conservation. However, if a third body is present, as in condensed matter, it
too can participate in recoil. So without quoting nuclear reaction cross
sections, which are not measured in the condensed phase anyway, a reaction
written as

Pd + D + D -> Pd + He + 22 Mev

is physically correct. Written as such, microscopic reversibility is also
satisfied. 

Am I wrong?

                                                            David Naugler

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / James Crotinger /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: 4 Aug 95 01:03:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

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

  Well, a billion years seems like a long time. I do remember doing a
calculation as an NE undergraduate where we showed that the u238
laying around in tailings were enough to supply the worlds energy
needs for about 4 centuries. We don't even have to mine it.
Unfortunately, I doubt this will ever be politically feasable, unless
everyone has the bomb.

  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:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Bruce TOK /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:41:13 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Bob Casanova (cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com) wrote:

|> 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.

I would like to see someone estimate the cost per kW-hr of sealing the
waste in these glass bricks.  That is a nontrivial industrial process.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / A Anderson /  Re: Cartesian Coordinate Problem
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cartesian Coordinate Problem
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 01:45:16 GMT
Organization: Mide Services

Dear Gordon Sanderson,

    Are you saying that you've got a few known points in space and you 
want to work out the coordinates of a new point, only given that you 
know it's distances to the known ones?

    You were a bit terse in explaining the problem, but I'm sure it's 
similar to this.  I had a similar problem trying to make a 
microprocessor system that controlled a model aircraft acrobatic 
display, using Doppler.  

    Are you involved in a project to do with Virtual Reality Sensors?  
Anyhow it's easily seeable if you fiddle with it with pencil and paper, 
in two D.  Do a few doodles and you'll see it's all Pythagoras' 
Theorem.  

    If you go to the library and check out the latest books in VR 
technology, you might see your exact problem already thought out for 
you.  However it's very good to work it out yourself; you can see what 
the answer is on the bus-ride to the library!

    If you want reassurance that you remember Pythagoras' Theorem 
correctly, a very well written book on Computer Graphics is:

    Computer Graphics and Geometric Modelling for Engineers
    by Vera B. Anand of Clemson University
    Wiley & Sons, 1993
    ISBN 0-471-51417-9

    It's got a picture of a large turbo-fan on a dark turquoise cover.



Sandy

P.S. Pythagoras and his followers argued out that theorem by drawing in 
the sand with sticks.  Common sense.
-- 
// 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:
cuddy04 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.03 / Bruce TOK /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:46:19 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

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

: 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.  

The fluctuations in the solar energy flux at 1 AU have been negligible
in the overall sense for these times (of order parts in 10^4).  Climate
is possibly sensitive to this, but energy collection would not be.

Even at the time of formation, according to standard models, the solar
luminosity was 72 per cent of its current level.  Changes as large as a
few per cent are secular and take at least hundreds of millions of years
to occur.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM 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 21:19 -0500 (EST)

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
One of the primary problems in CF is that experimental measurements have shown
that there are few or no neutrons generated.  Normally when 2 D2 fuse you get
neutrons.  Your explaination generates high quantities of neutrons.  An
explaination that fits the experimental data requires that few or no neutrons
are generated. Standard theory predicts neutrons already.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 4 Aug 1995 00:13:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3vr83g$40g@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:

>
>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

No I have not, but I would appretiate any assistance you or anybody else
can give in this case. I assume the emitted electron's energy is below the
critical T for Palladium, which simply means that ionization will dominate
over bremsstrahlung scattering. (critical T is about 560/Z for Z>5) This
means that we will have gamma and other photon emission.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Filimonenko's "warm fusion invention" of 1960
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Filimonenko's "warm fusion invention" of 1960
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:40:26 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <AAiqF8mKb3@frolov.spb.su>, "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su> wrote:

> 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.

***{This appears to be virtually identical to the Pons-Fleischmann claim.
Is there any way to independently corroborate whether this post is true?
For example, were there any articles in the Western press at the time
which reported on this idea? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> //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. 

***{This is certainly a believable statement! The slave masters of the
Soviet Union, as is now well known, couldn't find their butts with both
hands! It is obvious that they would kill any important discovery and
imprison the inventor! --Mitchell Jones}***

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:
cuddy04 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Ben Weiner /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 4 Aug 1995 03:02:01 -0400
Organization: Brooklyn Engineering District

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:

 [flaming solar versus fusion power]

: >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. 

I have no opinion here (since I've already flamed Paul Koloc's .sig
about "Commercial Fusion in the 90s" once this year).  I just like
saying "WE WILL NEED THE DESSERTS."  It sounds like something Obi-Wan
Kenobi would say while using the Force on some goon Cholesterol Troopers
wearing white PVC outfits and carrying laser ice cream scoops:

  These aren't the desserts you're looking for.
  - These aren't the desserts we're looking for.
  We will need the desserts.
  - You will need the desserts.

Also, I want to say that there are plenty of desserts in the world,
but still not enough to go around.  At least for a graduate student
with a sweet tooth.  WE NEED MORE DESSERTS DAMNIT !  WHEN WILL
SCIENCE SOLVE THIS PRESSING PROBLEM WHICH THREATENS ALL OF HUMANITY????

-- 
As we rush head first into tomorrow's world
But something must have happened to my antenna!
I'm gone through a hole in the sky
bye bye now                                  -- the mekons
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug  5 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
