1995.08.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 6 Aug 1995 02:18:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-0508952006300001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > 

I wrote:

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

MJ wrote:

> 
> ***{As already noted, Griggs has been responding to criticism and
> modifying his experimental design for the better part of a decade. The
> simple,bulletproof design which we have been discussing is the result of
> that lengthy process. Neither you nor any of the other skeptics can find a
> hole in that design, despite your lengthy academic credentials, because
> the careful cross checking has already been done, and re-done, and
> re-re-done. 

Mitchell: I don't want to start a war over this. I think we have 
reasonable disagreement over the *current* situation. Becasue the setup
seems, in current scientific thinking---and even current 
scientific speculation!---very unlikely to produce excess heat, 
I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
NIST would be ideal. Once that occurs, I'll be willing to beleive 
its true. Until them, I primarily advocate looking for more
loopholes in the protocol.

You, on the other hand, accept Grigg's already extensive personal
efforts as sufficient proof. That is fine. Its your judgement. 
Are you acting on this judgement? Eg trying to invest in his
company, or whatever? For, that is what I would do if I believed
in the reality of his claims. Precisely because I would take actions if
I held such beliefs, I must be cautious and have high standards.

In any case, I certainly think the matter warrants further investigation,
though I think most interesting would be some form of external verification,
e.g. scott little getting ahold of a smallich Griggs device.

> 
> ***{By the way, Barry: I have been told via e-mail that you walk around
> the UCSD campus with your head shaved, wearing a day-glo orange hunting
> cap, that you wear a white shirt on which you have written the symbols of
> various chemical and physical quantities, that the students titter when
> you walk by, and that you spend most of your time washing dishes in the
> student union cafeteria. Is this true? 

Dammit! The truth is out! Micth Jones, I condemn you to CHICAGO.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 6 Aug 1995 02:22:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3vgp0d$3o68@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce  
D. Scott) writes:
> 
> Except for "the ITER method", all of these will be better addressed
> computationally before a major restructuring in terms of hardware is
> committed.  By about five years, or maybe less, transport in confined,
> magnetised plasmas will have ceased to be a mystery, and I don't just
> mean tokamaks (in which the two-dimensional character of the geometry is
> a real bonus for computations).  We will have sufficient power to test
> known transport physics via direct simulation in all of the different
> configurations people have dreamed up and explore various ways to
> externally control profiles and magnetic geometry.  Then, not now, is
> the time to think of designing a reactor.
>

I agree with your sentiment, but I doubt the 5 year figure. What
do you base it on. It seems to me 5 years will be the timescale for limited,
reliable direct simulation, but hardly for direct simulation of entire
concepts. There is still a lot of important physics missing from current
direct simulation efforts.

Also, by direct simulation do you mean gyro-particle, gyro-fluid,
or other?




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


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: 5 Aug 1995 16:53:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DCoFAu.Fr2@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>In article <DCKL24.CAs@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>In article <3vghac$bem@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>Even a plasmak is going to need to recirculate some power 
>> for compression!
>
>Since we can convert  95% of the burned fuel to electric power,
>most of the power used in recirculation is recovered. That
>certainly is not the case with a tokamak which may chunk out
>electric power with a 20 to 35% efficiency.  I'm not talking
>pie in the sky science numbers, here.   

Paul, your argument would be a lot stronger if you'd
present a little more evidence and perhaps use some
accurate numbers for a change.

Your numbers are only correct if you get a significant 
fraction of your fuel to burn.  The power needed to
compress the plasma is only amplified if you get a decent
amount of fusion.  You don't have that yet, and where have 
you demonstrated that it will occur?  Also, where do 
you get 95% conversion efficiencies?  Do you have a 
writeup that shows how this is possible and explains 
why your direct-conversion method is more efficient 
than any of the others I've heard about (which run
more like 80%)?

Finally, your numbers on the tokamak are low.  Even a
boiling water facility can get 30%, and use of helium
or other advanced coolants should get you 40-50%.

>>Actually, in a tokamak Bremmstrahlung losses from alphas are
>>hardly a problem.  Unless you have a better example I'm going
>>to conclude that the only problem is that these "implementations"
>>are merely at odds with your political views.  
>
>This is only true for a machine which can't burn, and likely
>ITER also won't burn.  But for a machine that burns, this is
>a real issue, and it can't be passed off so flippantly.  

Why is it a real issue for a machine that burns?  The
overwhelmingly dominant power loss mechanism is 
transport, not bremsstrahlung.  Only in fuels like D-He3 
and P-B11 is Bremsstrahlung a significant factor.

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

What on earth are you talking about now?  Context would be
useful.

>> Most of the 
>>ideas would work well together; for instance, shaping
>>and profile control are not at odds with one another, and
>>alpha channeling is not going to mess up impurity content.
>
>Why because it doesn't burn or doesn't radiate!?!?   Neat trick
>if you can conjure it.  

Because alpha channeling, if it worked, would *remove*
the alphas from the plasma.  It actually *reduces* the
impurity content of the plasma.  The wave-particle 
interaction physics is such that the theorists believe
we can simultaneously transfer particle energy to the 
wave while physically moving the particle outwards 
in minor radius.  Try reading some of the recent
papers by Nat Fisch here at PPPL.

>>>I think there has been plenty work enough on this approach at GA in
>>>La Jolla.  The problem is that even though it gives you a higher Beta, 
>>>it unfortunately produces such a mechanical coil stress that the 
>>>applied field has to be dropped by 2.  So actually, you will lose; 
>>>since it has other problems that add both cost and complexity.   
>
>>I'm not sure what you're talking about.  TPX was designed to
>>be as heavily shaped as DIII-D, and it wasn't going to run at
>>half the field.  I know DIII-D has recently damaged its 
>>poloidal field system, which limits their operating ability, 
>>but I have yet to hear any sort of explanation why.
>
>Has nothing to do with recent problems (or does it?) with the 
>poioidal field coil system.  This has to do with the maximum
>pressure that can be safely brought to bear on the plasma.  If
>the TFC are circular, the coils are stronger, and if K-B shaped 
>they are weaker while the torque is greater, so maximum "circular"
>level field strengths can't be used.  

Actually, the highest fields in the business (Alcator C-MOD)
are made using *rectangular* TF coils.  So you're completely
out in left field here.  JET designers (Rebut et al) showed that 
D-shaped coils suffer the least stress overall.  I think you should
study this a little more before you talk about it.

>For example, what field
>pressure  (in atm or bar) are the TPAX coils compared to the ITER 
>coils?     Iter runs arond 1.0 Kilobar ... correct?  
>So is that the case for TPX or is it more like 0.5 Kb.  

I'm not your student, and I'm sure you can do your own homework.
If you want to prove your point, you should get your own numbers.

>>There are a lot of highly-shaped tokamaks besides DIII-D which
>>are doing just fine, anyway.  What about Alcator, with the
>>highest fields in the business?
>
>But, Bob, these fields aren't nearly as large as ITER plans to
>use.  What were you going to build out there, a POWDERPUFF? 

Hello?  Alcator fields are already roughly twice ITER fields.
TFTR fields are greater than ITER's fields will be.

>We expect to run applied up to 20kb with center toroidal pressures
>of 150-200 kb.  

Sure, and then you'll have commercial fusion in the nineties.
But the last article you wrote used a videocamera as a diagnostic.
I'm not holding my breath.  But I do find your ideas interesting.

>Unfortunately, the stresses won't allow your shaped program to be
>utilized since the torques eat your choosen one's over all structural 
>strength alive.  

Not like you can't engineer a supporting structure or anything.
Funny, but Alcator has done just fine by engineering against the 
various stresses in a high-field (9 Tesla, remember?) system.

>>Again, I think you're out in left field.  If I control the profiles
>>and get a more highly peaked density and temperature profile, I have
>>*more* plasma in the machine (counting particles, that is).  
>>Do you have a serious argument here or are you just going to
>>speak in implausible obscurities?
>
>Certainly, I have an argument.  if you peak density, it's only because
>you apply your availible coil pressure to a smaller cross-section.
>You do not have a magic way of increasing pressure, your beast is
>pressure limited due to the use of physical solid state magnet coils.  

Actually, one point of profile control is that you *can*
increase the pressure limit by controlling the shape of the plasma
profiles.  For instance, reversed shear on TFTR has demonstrated
roughly a tripling of the core pressure limit.  The beta limit
in a tokamak is not a hard limit impervious to innovation, 
at least not yet.

>So, you can get a higher density and temperature (Higher pressure) by
>concentrating the product T*n on axis.  BUT this makes it more
>unstable to kinking...

Not necessarily, and that's a key point.  The beta limit varies with
the profiles.  The other key point is that fusion reactivity scales
with density squared, but pressure only scales with density, so if
you can focus the density to peak in the center, you get much more
fusion power.

>You are trying to live within
>the constraints of a flawed pressure box.  You slide one way or
>the other way along the hyperbola, but you are not making a silly
>millimeter in the direction of T*n*t product.  So you have a higher
>n*T but you lose on tau, since you're kink or disruption prone.    

Actually, what ideas like profile control and reversed-shear do
is to *expand* the pressure box.  For instance, TFTR's reversed
shear results show a tripling in n and a large increase in tau
without any change in T.  That *is* progress in n*T*t, and that's
the whole point!

>>There you go again!  (1) I hardly represent PPPL, considering that
>>I'm but a wee grad student; (2) I think PPPL has (for the most
>>part) pretty much accepted that TPX is a lost cause; most of the
>>scientists are interested in extending TFTR to do some more studies
>>of the enhanced reversed shear mode, alpha channeling, and other
>>new ideas that have shown promise here in the past six months.
>
>I just thought their lastest propaganda rubbed off on you, and you 
>then are just spreading the true word as you know it to be. 

You should learn to treat people as individuals and not as
mind-controlled creatures of institutions.

>Explain Alpa channeling, maybe I'm missing something. 

Do you have Web access?  Try http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/PossThesis.html.
If not, I'll bring this up in a separate thread.  I did post an
article about it earlier this year.

>>It would appear that you have once again allowed your political
>>perspective to cloud your perception of who I am, what I stand
>>for, and even why I said what I said.  
>
>I resent (huff huff) your accusing me of politics, since, the well 
>known lobby team from Princeton is likely responsible for keeping
>you chaps in the chips, while at the same time ripping most
>of the competition to shreds.

This is nonsense.  If you get the DOE budget data for the past
20 years you'll see that regardless of what the fusion budget
was, PPPL received 25-30% of it.  (I posted this analysis here
roughly a year ago, so you should be able to find it in the 
newsgroup archives at sunsite, too.)  That means PPPL has taken 
budget hits when the fusion program has, and hasn't been 
squeezing anyone else out by claiming a higher budget share.  
That's an objective fact; you can check it just by looking 
at the budget numbers.  (Which is not to say that PPPL hasn't 
protected its own projects to maintain its share of the budget.)
The alternative concepts were actually squeezed out by the 
smaller tokamaks, GA and Alcator and so on, not by PPPL.  
You should at least look at the numbers before accusing 
PPPL of ripping the competition to shreds.

...

>As far as the VCR diagnosic goes .. are we past that??  
>Actually not, they are very useful, and we are even rigging 
>them to take X-ray images of the currents within.  

Okay, X-ray measurements are an improvement.  But you should
at least see about getting a high-speed video camera so you
can have more than a couple of frames per plasmoid.

>I guess you
>chaps are beyond the VCR camera level.  

Well, we do have a plasma TV just to look at the shots.
It's useful for telling when the plasma marfes, disrupts,
or generally does other unfortunate things in a shot.
Plus it looks cool.

>I suppose, as long as
>we form and fly these things to and into compression chambers, 
>we will be watching with a VCR.  Ta Da!  Do you have independent
>(no feeds or attachments) plasmoids that are that long lasting 
>so as to see them intact frame after frame?  

Yes, we do: a TFTR shot runs for a couple seconds.  That has 
no feeds or attachments.

> Well... there
>you go, A VCR would be useless for your purposes.   

But I just said above that we use one, and it's not useless.
It just isn't the most useful diagnostic.

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

You missed out on the latest auction of excess equipment
here, and I don't have the clout (or the desire) to send
you stuff.  But as for diagnostics - you might try
getting a microwave interferometry setup going so you
can measure densities.  That shouldn't be too expensive.
If you do it right (use a polarized source) you can use 
faraday rotation effects to perhaps get a sense of the 
plasmoid's internal B-fields.

If you're running in air then you shouldn't see much in the
way of UV line emission; wouldn't most of it be absorbed
by the intervening air?  Ditto for low-enegy (< 1 keV)
X-rays, I should think.  

Some useful equipment may become available cheaply after 
the budget axe falls October 1; you should try to hook 
in to the excess equipment auction mailing lists (but 
you'll have to go through DOE to get the info).

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

Yes, and why won't you have the same problem in spades when you
try to do a compression burn?  

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

What is the mean free path for a neutral particle travelling into
the PMK?  And what is the mean free path for an escaping fuel
ion which has charge-exchanged and is now flying rapidly outwards?
(Hint:  mean free path for escaping fuel ion will be longer than
for incoming neutral.)  Have you done a serious calculation of
the equilibrium neutral population during a gas-pressurized
compression burn?  What will you use as a compression gas and why?

>Besides.. .if it would supposed to work as you say then ...???  
>Why doesn't this happen in a turbulent wind to ball lightning.  

It's not my responsibility to answer that question, it's yours.
But as you mentioned, the fact that charge exchange doesn't
lose you much energy unless the plasma and neutral gas are at
significantly different temperatures could be part of it.
Only in a fusion compression burn would charge-exchange losses
eat you alive.

>Also, candles burn with low power, yet burn on and on even
>though such cooling mechanism could steal the heat from them.

The flame is only very slightly ionized though, and atmospheric
density is also very low compared to your proposed P-B11 burn
densities.  We're talking vastly different regimes from a 
megaKelvin P-B11 compresson burn.

>In fact, convection is even more powerful cooling mechanism, yet 
>the flame burns on.   Your remarks are likely capricious and 
>without much serious consideration as to the pressure shortening 
>of mean-free-path, laminar effects (due to insulation at higher 
>pressures) and the like.   

No, these aren't capricious remarks.  Charge exchange is an
important plasma process, and has a higher cross section than
either impact ionization or three-body recombination.
Suppose the initial PMK is like a candle flame.  What you propose
to do is compression-heat that candle flame using a blast of 
(much colder) compressed air.  What I want to know is how you 
can be sure that the cooling effect of the air (due to
charge-exchange losses of the ions from the plasma) won't snuff
out your flame.  After all, an easy way to put out a candle flame
is simply to blow hard on it, right?

>>(I'd be much less skeptical 
>>if you were going to try a highly-leveraged magnetic 
>>compression by (perhaps) ramping up (or down) a magnetic 
>>field along the axis of the toroid and letting the Ideal 
>>MHD flux-freezing law do all the work.  Or is that not 
>>possible for some reason?)
>
>Don't you mean you would be more comfortable with the 
>only way you know that plasmas are compressed by obsolete
>laboratory vacuum plasma technology? 

I'm not sure you're following me.  The toroidal current
in your spheromak-like configuration can only enclose so
much vertical magnetic flux through the core, because
the flux through a near-ideal conducting loop must always
be constant.  So if you run an external vertical field 
through the axis, and crank it up from a gauss to a tesla
or something, you should force the area enclosed by the 
spheromak's current loop to decrease by a factor of 10,000.
That forces the radius to decrease by 100, and the volume
to go down by roughly 1,000,000.  I figured those
sorts of compression numbers would be comparable to your
gas-compression scheme, only without the problem
of charge-exchange cooling.

>Besides.. .
>It's not stable to tilting mode.  You should know that!

But how quickly is it unstable?  If you can ramp the
vertical field up before the tilting mode kicks in,
you can burn so fast that the tilting mode won't have
a clue what hit it.  Besides, once there's an
appreciable vertical field the tilting mode will have to
bend the vertical field in order to occur, and that
ought to stabilize it a bit.  Think about it; I could
be wrong, but I don't think you can just dismiss
the idea without some thought.  Especially because
it gets you away from having to worry about
charge-exchange losses of your hot core ions.

Did anyone actually try magnetic compression of a
spheromak?  Is there literature on this?

>Also, one can only reach a tiny fraction of the pressure 
>one can reach with simple fluid pressure compression.  

Are you sure?  If you form the thing at 1 bar and you
get a factor of 1,000,000 compression as I described
above, that should bring you to an average pressure of 
1 Mbar, which is a factor of 50 higher than what you
claimed way back up there (20 kbar).  

I think you're just dismissing the idea out of hand
because it comes from someone at PPPL.

>Also it's cheaper, and can be augmented with a profile 
>burn using simplex.  and so on and so on.. .
>
>Bob, your tok's a creaker!

Again, it isn't *my* tokamak!  You seem to be off
using your royal "you" again.  

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 18:47:49 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <3vun3b$bif@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>The torque should be
>measured by mounting the motor housing on multiple silicon strain gages

Note that the Griggs device is said to vibrate like crazy.  You are
going to need a large flywheel, with a flex coupling between flywheel
and pump, in order to avoid "rolling off" the high frequencies..



--
  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Solar-panelled highways
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar-panelled highways
Date: 5 Aug 1995 17:15:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DCpx8z.M9o@midway.uchicago.edu> , 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.  

Actually it's very simple (at least for the U.S.):  
(1) Estimate the costs of environmental, health, and defense
effects of fossil fuel use, most of which are currently paid 
for by the government through the medicare, social security,
transportation, and defense budgets, with funding coming 
partly from existing gasoline taxes but mostly via personal 
and corporate income taxes.

(2) Increase taxes on fossil fuels so that they cover those 
costs, instead of income taxes.

(3) Reduce income taxes by the amount permitted by the
increased fossil fuels taxes.

This will not cost individuals any more (on average) than
it did before, but it will eliminate the hidden subsidies on
fossil fuel use.  Those who are concerned that higher fuel
taxes will fall disproportionately on the poor can 
compensate by making the income tax structure more 
progressive.

We already directly impose costs on nuclear facilities,
so that utilities will (largely) pay for their nuclear 
waste dumps.  Why not do the same for fossil fuels?

> But do not think of this in terms of
>"forcing them to pay".  The "tehm" you talk about are us.

Yes, and we already pay indirectly through our other
taxes.  The question is, do you want to pay directly, so
that it's clear what you're really paying for, or indirectly,
so people like you can get confused and think no one is
actually paying the price of fossil fuel use?

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Solution to Off-Charter Posts; Crossposting Netiquette
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solution to Off-Charter Posts; Crossposting Netiquette
Date: 5 Aug 1995 17:51:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I realize it's bad form to follow-up to one's own 
posting, but I was wondering why people hadn't
bothered to discuss this article any further?

In any event, this gives me a chance to refresh the
discussion about netiquette.  Please keep this in mind:

     CROSSPOSTING NETIQUETTE: 
     If you want to crosspost an article which is only marginally
     related to a particular group's charter, you may do so 
     once for a particular thread, but you should direct 
     followup articles to a single, most-appropriate newsgroup.


-------------------
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:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / 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: 6 Aug 1995 13:17:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <dougDCr27r.n1A@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes: 
>
>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

Email me a problem and I will see what I can do with it.


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / 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: 6 Aug 1995 13:37:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vrmjh$a87@starman.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A.
Schumacher) 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.
>>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.)

A rose by any other name...

As I have posted, all physical properties arise from cycles thusly:

time(X) = cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
( I know "Wild-eyed" Merrit objects to cycle ratios having the
  dimension of time, but I was not the one who gave time a dimension. )

distance = time * a constant
velocity = distance / time
mass(A) = velocity(B)^3 * time / G

Also the ratio of interaction time ( Commonly called distance / C ) and
orbital time ( Commonly called period / ( 2 * pi ) ) is a tangent
function.
        
What would you call an algorthim which develops all of the physical
properties from a couple of simple assumptions?

In previous posts, I have developed many of the important properties
such as mass and energy from fundamental cycles, step by step. 
Why don't you show me ANY point at which I erred?
This would be more productive than confusing the issue with a complex,
convoluted problem which might tend to obscure the basics.


   



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 05:45:54 GMT
Organization: Improving

On Tue, 01 Aug 1995 11:19:55 -0500, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell
Jones) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Based on 1 HP = 745.7 Watts, I get 65.58 HP, actually slightly less
than the mechanical input power. This implies an over-unity (slightly)
electric motor as well. Although I am quite willing to attribute this
difference to measurement error, or precision of my own calculations,
it does rather beg the question where Griggs and Co. managed to find
an electric motor that is 100% efficient.

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

[snip]
Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / 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: 5 Aug 1995 15:34:17 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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.

There are obvious social purpose for which that is true, but who knows
how good virtual reality might become. :-)  I am not all
sure about business purposes. There will soon be places for teleconferences
where each participant can have a seat at a table much like a conventional
business meeting.

: 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).

Inconvenient transportation is not such a problem if you do not need
to travel much. There is no significant problem in delivery to rural
areas if the average population of the area is great enough. For
the vast majority of purchases virtual reality will be more than
adequate. 

: 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.

These things are not mutually exclusive. People will have solar panel
roofs and might even have solar plots on land that is not usable for
agriculture. The technology that made big more productive in almost
everything is now being superseded by technology that can reverse
that trend. You might have a professional occupation and own a fully
automated small farm that takes almost none of your time. We need to
keep hands off some land for wilderness preservation but I think we
can make areas with even moderately high population density more like
the place they were before man started interfering. We can put the
bulk of the house underground and minimize the impact that human
dwellings have on the environment.

Paul Budnik
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 20:06:30 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

> In article <21cenlogic-0108951119550001@199.172.8.155> 21cenlogic@i-link.net  
> (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> [Regarding the Griggs excess heat hot water experiments]
> 
> ***{There is no "problem" to locate! The situation is too simple! 
> 
> Mitchell: basically, what your are telling me is: this 
> is a very simple experiment, involving only a couple gross measurements
> and using standard, tried and true hardware. Some competent
> people executed the experiment and computed 10% excess heat.
> 
> Fine. But because they have not documented a painstaking search
> for errors in their procedure, that renders it inconclusive. 

***{Barry, Griggs has been getting excess heat for the better part of a
decade. His experimental design has been modified and upgraded countless
times based upon his own ideas, those of his employees, and the
suggestions of the various skeptics, consultants, and sundry "experts" who
have trooped through his facility. Has this been "documented?" Frankly, I
am not sure what you mean. Jed has posted various articles on the internet
that have mentioned skeptics who have visited Griggs lab (Tom Droege, a
team from the University of Georgia, and various others), as well as teams
of consultants hired by Griggs to make suggestions, as well as various
improvements that Griggs has made in his setup over the years. In
addition, Griggs' work has been discussed in various journals, including
"Cold Fusion," "Cold Fusion Times," "Infinite Energy," and others.
Apparently, in your view, such material does not qualify as
"documentation." Thus I can only assume that you demand some sort of
history of what Griggs has done, published in a mainstream journal, before
you will grant that a serious, sustained attempt has been made by
competent people to find the errors that may lurk in his design. If so,
then I think you are being unfair. You should know perfectly well that no
"reputable" journal would publish such a history: "reputable" journals
stay within the limitations of the established scientific paradigm;
"disreputable" journals do not. (This is true *by definition.*) It thus
makes no sense to say that, since Griggs' claim lies outside the
established paradigm, he must publish in a "reputable" journal before you
will take him seriously. You know perfectly well that no "reputable
journal would publish such material, precisely *because* it lies outside
the established paradigm. It's "Catch 22" all over again! --Mitchell
Jones}***

> I
> suggest that they have just stumbled upon a loophole in their
> experimental design (which surely must be more likely
> than discovering a new power source in a blender).
> 
> > It's like looking on a bare kitchen table to see if your wallet is there:  
> >once you have looked and failed to find it, you lapse into absurdity if you
> >continue to maintain that it may be there!
> 
> Try this experiment: place wallet on bare table, stand ~ 10 ft
> away. Cover one eye with hand, focus other eye on wallet, then
> turn head very slightly until wallet dissappears. Amazing! By tilting
> your head slightly you can teleport the wallet into and out of
> our universe! I think its some sort of ZPF effect, myself.
> What could possibly be wrong? This is simplicity in itself---your'e
> looking at it with your _own eyes_! To question this is absurdity....

***{You're abusing the table-and-wallet metaphor, Barry. The "blind spot"
was found by experimenters who were seeking an explanation for such
experiences as you describe. They looked into the eye and, lo and behold,
they discovered that there was an area inside the visual field where there
were no receptors! In terms of the table-and-wallet metaphor, this means
that they looked on the kitchen table for the wallet, and found that it
was there! All I am asking you to do is something similar: examine Griggs'
experiment with an eye to finding potential errors that can explain the
result, and then publicly state what they are. It's a challenge, Barry!
--Mitchell Jones}***
 > 
> Of course, the truth is that the measuring device being used
> to monitor the wallets existence---the human eye---has a blind
> spot due to the presence of the optic nerve root obscuring a
> small part of the retina's field of view. It is a visual instrument
> with < 100 percent coverage of the commonly perceived field of view.
> 
> So, if you want a concrete example of such a potential loophole---I make
> no claim that this is likely---suppose they tune the machine
> to produce a flow mode that statistically tends to produce
> hot spots near the thermocouples, causing them to overestimate 
> outflow temp by 10%. Voil'a, a ``special'' excess heat hot water mode.

***{Unfortunately, as I noted in my post, you need to find an error on the
order of 20%, not 10%, to invalidate this result. The reason: a 10% error
only takes you back to a percentage COP of 100%, which is not low enough,
given that the heat lost to the environment via the uninsulated rotor
housing and electric motor isn't being taken into account. If, for
example, the sum of the heat lost by these routes is 10%--a very
reasonable prospect--then the true percentage COP would be 100%  + 10% =
110%, which is over unity again. So your suggestion, ridiculous though it
may seem to anyone who tries to imagine a series of six "hot spots"
magically clinging to six widely separated thermocouples in a stream of
running water, still is not ridiculous enough to force the percentage COP
below 100%. Too bad, Barry! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> The above is of course very unlikely---but then how likely was it
> that the eye had a blind spot? Its just a particular loophole
> that exists, and if your search carefully for it you find its
> effect.
> 
> The *only* way to eliminate such loopholes is to do exhaustive
> cross checks, searching for them. In the case of eyes, if you always
> use two of them the blind spot will not trouble you. For all
> I know, if griggs would just use 12 thermocouples insead of 6, 
> his excess heat mode would vanish as well.

***{Barry, didn't it strike you as a bit odd that Griggs is using six
thermocouples in the input fluid stream, and six in the output stream?
Doesn't that seem a bit much? What do you suppose is the explanation? Try
this: he started off, about a decade ago, with mercury thermometers, one
in the input and one in the output. Then some skeptic, hearing about the
excess heat, said: "Mercury thermometers are inaccurate. You should use
thermocouples. If you do, I'll bet the excess heat disappears." Result:
Griggs placed a thermocouple in the input stream, and another in the
output stream. Then another skeptic came by, and said: "I'll bet you have
your input thermocouple in a cold spot in the flow, and your output
thermocouple in a hot spot. You should use three thermocouples on each
side of the flow. If you do, I'll bet that the excess heat disappears." So
Griggs placed three thermocouples in the inflow, and three in the outflow.
Result: the next skeptic who came along said, "I'll bet that all three of
your input thermocouples are at cold spots in the flow, and all three of
your output thermocouples are at hot spots in the flow. To be safe, you
should use six thermocouples on each side of the flow. If you do, I'll bet
your excess heat disappears." So Griggs added three more thermocouples on
each side of the flow, for a total of six on each side. Result: Barry
Merriman came along and said, "You know, you probably have all six of your
input thermocouples positioned at cold spots in the flow, and all six of
your output thermocouples positioned at hot spots in the flow. If you use
12 input thermocouples and 12 output thermocouples, I'll bet that the
excess energy effect goes away."

Do you, perhaps, detect a pattern developing here, Barry? The question is,
when is enough enough? Is Hell going to have to supplant Aspen as the most
popular ski resort before you so called "scientists" begin to seriously
consider the possibility that Griggs is onto something?

As for the specific content of your "hot spot" theory, I would only note
that Griggs gets the excess heat effect with many different models of his
device. Those diverse models use different rotor sizes and designs,
different motors and motor r.p.m's, and a wide range of different water
flow rates. How can it be, given these diverse conditions within the flow,
that the "hot spots" hypothesized by you always manage to position
themselves near the thermocouples on the outflow side of the test stand?
Has Griggs, perhaps, invented a new thermocouple which, like Maxwell's
demon, preferentially grabs hold of fast moving molecules, while letting
the slow moving ones pass by? Bottom line: either your "hot spot" theory
is wrong, or the second law of thermodynamics is wrong! --Mitchell
Jones}***  
> 
> 
> Appealing to the simplicty of the experiment has no bearing on
> whether such ``tuned'' circumstances exist or not. They can
> only be ruled out by careful cross check, and moreover, they
> are *very difficult to predict in advance*, so simply becuase I 
> cannot figure out with high probabiliy what it is does not mean 
> its not there.
> 
> Anything less than this approach is nothing more than faith
> in the outcome.
> 
> You disagree with this, I take it?
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

***{As already noted, Griggs has been responding to criticism and
modifying his experimental design for the better part of a decade. The
simple,bulletproof design which we have been discussing is the result of
that lengthy process. Neither you nor any of the other skeptics can find a
hole in that design, despite your lengthy academic credentials, because
the careful cross checking has already been done, and re-done, and
re-re-done. You guys have had your shots, and had them again, and yet
again. Nevertheless, the excess energy is still there, staring you in the
face. What is your response? Simple: you assert that the fact that none of
you have been able to find a flaw in the experiment does not mean that it
is not there; and you accuse those who are willing to face the facts of
acting on blind faith! --Mitchell Jones}***

***{By the way, Barry: I have been told via e-mail that you walk around
the UCSD campus with your head shaved, wearing a day-glo orange hunting
cap, that you wear a white shirt on which you have written the symbols of
various chemical and physical quantities, that the students titter when
you walk by, and that you spend most of your time washing dishes in the
student union cafeteria. Is this true? :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / 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: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 11:09 -0500 (EST)

David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca> writes:
 
-> My understanding is that it is the requirements of energy and momentum
-> conservation that determine the outcome of two body collisions. When two bod
-> 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, i
-> 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.
 
The equations are correct.  At this time there is no theory I know of that
could explain how a Pd nucleus with a +46 charge could interact at close range
with a D2 nucleus.  Note that a beta decay is also a 3 body decay as well, when
you count the antineutrino.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / David Kastrup /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: dak@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electrom
g,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 6 Aug 1995 08:57:52 GMT
Organization: RWTH -Aachen / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik

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

>All that Einstein did was accept both Poincare and Lorentz and to say
>that Lorentz's work is equivalent to assuming that the speed of light
>is held constant

Lorentz developed the equations for electromagnetic fields
only. Einstein was the first to postulate that indeed space/time itself
got transformed under movement, and that linear movement observed a
relativity making all non-accelerated systems equivalent, including
the invariance of the speed of light. Also the
equivalence of mass and energy was a derivation of Einstein, and was
very fundamental for understanding of nuclear processes. Lorentz
did considerable work on special relativity, but did not see and derive
all consequences.

Nobody claimed that Einstein has worked from scratch. He was, however,
the first to see and derive a lot of consequences, and the first one
to state general consequences for the space-time fabric of physics.
It was no accident that *Einstein* got accused of spreading rubbish
with his theory of special relativity: the Lorentz equations were just
that: some equations explaining the spreading of certain fields. Pretty
unspectacular to most, especially to the general public and physicist
outside of the electrical fields realm. It was
Einstein who claimed the general validity of the Lorentz equations as
a description of the space-time fabric and stirred up controversion with
that. So controversion centered around Einstein, not Lorentz, and of
course, the media mostly noticed that. But the controversial nature
of special relativity was not really stressed before Einstein jumped
into the fracas.

And at least general relativity (the equivalences of accelerated systems,
so to say) has had no other
precedents. In fact, experiments to confirm it occured decades after
the statement of it, whereas in special relativity there had been
experiments already which were still pending explanation.

>  The history is very clear and on all of this. But because Einstein
>had such a terrific press behind him, not that he himself intended it,
>but just the way the world social order went, Special Relativity is
>synonymous with Einstein

>  I don't cast aspersions on any one religion. I just want the truth.
>And it is not easy to fight the whole world just to see the record
>straight on two dead men, Poincare and Lorentz. 
Well, why do you think the Lorentz transformation is called the Lorentz
transformation, and not the Einstein transformation? The facts are
pretty well known, and there is no physics or physics history book
where this is denied.

To quote Isaac Newton:
If I was able to look far, it was because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants.

Of course Einstein relied on work by others.

>  We in the game of physics see as our biggest carrot the lure to
>physics fame.

Then you may be not typical. Most of the creative physicists I know
see as the biggest lure the pure joy of elegant solutions, and
getting closer to the heart of matter and the universe.

To come back to Einstein: he *hated* the popularity he had at the
media. They were constantly pestering him.
--
David Kastrup, Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen        Tel: +49-241-72419
  Email: dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de         Fax: +49-241-79502
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendak cudfnDavid cudlnKastrup cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 10:10:21 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 2 Aug 1995 16:29:49 -0400, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:

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

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

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

>The electron or electrons in the outer shell orbit the Palladium ion some
>of the time and they orbit the D some of the time because the D is
>embedded in the outer shell of the much larger Palladium ion. If electron
>capture occurs, that neutralizes one of the D momentarily thus eliminating
>any repulsive force between the two of them. If the two fuse, the
>resulting He4* excited state already starts out with a deficit of 0.782
>MeV so instead of 23.85 MeV it will have an energy surplus of 23.07 MeV.
>If the electron is subsequently ejected in beta decay together with an
>antineutrino they could easily carry off 2.47 MeV which makes breakup of
>the He4* impossible. 

If in the above most of the 2.47 MeV were to be carried off by the
antineutrino, then almost no radiation would be detected, providing
that the He4* then managed to get rid of the remainder of its energy
in the form of phonons.
[snip]
>Zoltan Szakaly

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 10:10:27 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 3 Aug 1995 11:41:13 GMT, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
wrote:

>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.

Just taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say it would be on the same
order as the energy of the chemical bonds in the material. i.e.
`1/1000000 of the energy released by fission in the first place.

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

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF Update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Update
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 95 16:41:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

cstangl@uswest.com (Craig Stangland) asks:
 
     "1. If CF is working, why isn't it out on the market?"
 
Because it takes a long time to develop products. Decades sometimes.
 
 
     "2. If CF is still lab research, at what stage of development is it?"
 
Coming right along.
 
 
     "3. In reality, is CF a lost hope?"
 
Nope.
 
 
     "I'd appreciate someone updating me/us."
 
Here is a brief bibliography. Have fun!
 
- Jed
 
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Phone: 404-451-9890   Fax: 404-458-2404
 
                              July 10, 1995
 
Recommended Publications
 
Here are some recommended publications relating to cold fusion. Contact us if
you want one of these items and you cannot get a copy. Items marked [E-Mail]
are available from the Cold Fusion Research Advocates (CFRA) in e-mail or
diskette. Items marked [SCIENCE Lib 2] can be downloaded from the CompuServe
SCIENCE forum physics library 2.
 
To contact us by e-mail, address messages to Jed Rothwell, Compuserve:
72240,1256. Internet: JEDROTHWELL@DELPHI.COM.
 
General
 
Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John
Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove $26 (including postage).
The definitive book on the subject.
 
E. Storms, "Cold Fusion Heats Up,"  Technology Review, May-June 1994 issue
(MIT), 20-29
 
The May 5, 1993 hearings covering both hot and cold fusion: "FUSION ENERGY,
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5.
 
Infinite Energy Magazine, Edited by E. Mallove, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH
03302-2816, Tel: 603-228-4516, Fax: 603-224-5975 E-mail:
76570.2270@compuserve.com
 
Good information on cold fusion can be found on the John Logajan s World Wide
Web home page: URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan
 
Technical
 
Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills,
MA 02181 E-mail address: mica@world.std.com
 
Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has published many
articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager, The American
Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back
issues of Fusion Technology are available from the APS publications office at
708-352-6611.
 
Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box
48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232  Fax: 801-583-6245
 
The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4).
This conference was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Advanced Nuclear Systems, and by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. It was
held December 6 - 9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. The proceedings
can be purchased from: EPRI Distribution Center * 207 Coggins Drive * P.O. Box
23205 * Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 * Tel: 510-934-4212
 
Another version of the ICCF4 proceedings was published by the American Nuclear
Society: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
Dec. 6 - 9, 1993, Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T,
Part 2 (Dec. 1994), ISSN: 0748-1896. This is a peer-reviewed set of some of
the formost papers. Unfortunately, some of the best papers from the conference
were either not submitted or they did not pass peer review, so they can only
be found in the full proceedings from EPRI.
 
Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 - 25, 1992)
in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5
Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax:
011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65)
 
P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold
Fusion In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the Second
Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July 4, 1991);
contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY. From the Second
Annual Conference proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal
Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443
 
M. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd
and H/Pd systems,"  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55
 
S. Focardi (Bologna U.), R. Habel (Cagliari U.), F. Piantelli (Siena U.),
"Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems," Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol 107 A, Feb.
1994, p. 163 - 167
 
M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952
 
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of the
Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb
technical introduction to the field.
 
O. Reifenschweiler (Philips), "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small
titanium particles," Physics Letters A, 184 (1994) 149-153
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
H. Gerischer (Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank), "Memorandum On The
Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion."  [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
Information about the Mills light water experiment. [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]
 
Media Coverage
 
BBC "Horizon" series science documentary, "Too Close to the Sun." Broadcast
March 21, 1994. Scheduled to be shown by the CBC in Canada on April 4, 1994
 
Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry
Bishop, cover story
 
Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson,
cover story
 
The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993 was
devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included
Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter
Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Bruce
Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes *
Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93)
 
The NPR program "Science Friday" was again devoted to cold fusion on January
20, 1995.
 
The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on cold
fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion." For a copy,
contact: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation * Post Broadcast Unit * Room 5-E,
314 J * P.O. Box 500 * Station A * Toronto, Canada M5W 1E6. The cost is $85
Canadian plus appropriate tax. Specify program title and date.
 
New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5
 
The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan cheap power
on a plate," by Michael White
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 95 16:42:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Snyder <bsnyder@iadfw.net> writes:
 
>Note that the Griggs device is said to vibrate like crazy.  You are
 
It does not vibrate like crazy. I cannot imagine where you got that from.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 95 16:50:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
>reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
>NIST would be ideal. Once that occurs, I'll be willing to beleive 
>its true. Until them, I primarily advocate looking for more
>loopholes in the protocol.
 
Why settle for that, Barry? You should demand that the thing be tested by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Oval Office of the White House. Also, you should
specify that the Joint Chiefs must report their results in Nature Magazine,
and they must hold a press conference buck naked, and they must present their
experimental data set to rap music.
 
As long as you are going to set impossible goals, set 'em high.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS:  Another Netiquette lesson.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS:  Another Netiquette lesson.
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 95 16:56:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Stuff your "netiquette"!!! You are the one who is posting all this garbage
about hot fusion Tokamaks! What about them? This newsgroup is supposed to
be about cold fusion, not about Welfare Ripoff Makework for idiot PhDs.
Tokamaks are off topic, go take them elsewhere. Start your own newgroup
for them, for crying out loud. Make it alt.sex.fetish.government.rippoff.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion: Challenges and Approaches
Date: 6 Aug 1995 21:03:47 GMT
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <jac.807420239@sundance>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:

>  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. 

Rats.  In April '93 there was was a discussion of 'high-density 
z-pinch' experiments here.  The latest being 'MAGPIE' at Imperial
College.  If it had been a roaring success I suppose someone would
have posted a followup.  Another dead end?

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparsec cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.06 / Scott Little /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 6 Aug 1995 21:39:59 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <Z-BC6wi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
>>reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
 
>As long as you are going to set impossible goals, set 'em high.
> 
>- Jed

Jed, just what is impossible about Barry's suggestion?  It is, in fact,
the most direct way to get "everyone" to accept the Griggs effect.

Don't you think an independant reputable lab would be interested in 
confirming the first working example of a device that obtains energy from
"somewhere else"?

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 /  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: 4 Aug 1995 23:04:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I feel that on one hand fusion should be possible in water, on the other
hand experimental error should be ruled out very carefully if temperature
measurements are used as proof of nuclear reactions. To start with fusion
first:

We have spent a lot of time discussing various possible mechanisms for
fusion reactions in a Palladium lattice pumped full of hydrogen or
Deuterium. These discussions under the thread of "Marshall Dudley
hypothesis" and "nuclear reaction time scales" have lead me to believe
that fusion reactions might happen when hydrogen is embedded in the
Palladium ion's outer electron shell. These reactions may be due to the
shielding effect of the electron's negative charge in between two hydrogen
nuclei. Even when we were discussing this I thought of water as a
structure where two hydrogen ions are embedded in the outside shell of
oxigen. Fusion might happen with the mechanisms we discussed there. The
expected results would manifest in excess heat as well as thermal neutrons
(hard to detect) and energetic electrons that are absorbed or slowed down
by the lattice (or water in this case) resulting in photons possibly also
absorbed and converted to heat at least partially. The difference in water
is that I would not expect the photons to be absorbed as easily because we
don't have all the freely roaming electrons to absorb them. If the water
has fusion reactions we should see gamma radiation or photons of some
wavelength. We should try to prove existance of the photons or energetic
electrons to prove that fusion is happening. Heat alone is not enough
proof of anything, especially not a few percents of heat excess. 

Regarding experimental error I can imagine a million sources of it, the
apparatus would have to be rebuilt with high tech instrumentation. For
example it was not mentioned how torque measurements were made, I suspect
the torque may be one significant source of error. The torque should be
measured by mounting the motor housing on multiple silicon strain gages (I
am an expert on that kind of force measurements), the motor rpm should be
measured by a rotating optical encoder with a precise time base and pulse
counter. The motor should be driven by Direct Current filtered properly to
smooth out the fluctuations of the voltage. With a three phase motor there
is no telling how the phases of the current and voltage relate to each
other and there is no telling how the sinusoidal waveform deviates from
actual sine wave. With DC we can precisely measure the power going into
the motor. It seems sloppy to me that someone in a previous posting said
that the power meter registered the same HP reading as the torque
measurement. The motor can't possibly have a better efficiency than 90
percent, I believe most motors measure in at 60 to 80 percent. The
electric power meter must show more power by 20-30 percent because of
that. Some heat from the motor will be transferred to the water through
the shaft, that heat will show up as excess because the motor heat is not
included in the shaft torque/rpm.

I could probably build a proper setup for around 50k if somebody is
interested.

Zoltan Szakaly



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.04 / Craig Stangland /  CF Update
     
Originally-From: cstangl@uswest.com (Craig Stangland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Update
Date: 4 Aug 1995 05:26:05 GMT
Organization: The Unconfigured xvnews people

Does anyone have an update as to where CF projects are?  That is:

1.	If CF is working, why isn't it out on the market?
2.	If CF is still lab research, at what stage of development is it?
3.	In reality, is CF a lost hope?

I'd appreciate someone updating me/us.

Craig



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencstangl cudfnCraig cudlnStangland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 04:02:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vqcub$ule@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>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.

What are you talking about.  What fluxuations in the solar energy flux
at 1 AU have been negligible in the overall sense for these (say a 1000 
or 2000 years) times (of the order parts in in 10^4th??    

Who the devil has an stable and accurate energy flux meter which has
been operating for such a period of time?  

Or are you older than your writing suggests??? 

>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.

Sure, and I've have a bridge in Brooklyn in which you might be 
interested .  

This obsolete model assumes that all fusion is confined to the core.  
They are not.  They are also generated by the nearly simultaneous 
formation of plasmak like magnetoplasmoids sub-surface in the sun.  
The mag cavitation (outward going displacement) produces reaction 
pressures inward against the Kernel ring plasma which compression 
heat it to a dense fusion burn.  As expansion continues to equalibrium, 
the cooling quenches this burn, and the remnant rises torwards the 
surface, expanding and adiabaticlly cooling as it goes.  At the 
surface (just slightly below it, the disparity of pressure at the 
top and bottom of the plasmoid can produce instabilities which 
may disrupt the plasmoid and the highly magnetized Kernel plasma.   
As a consequence the broken and strongly cooled ring may wash to 
surface and are seen as sunspots.  

So the Mounder?? Minimum a 100rds of years time of essentially no 
sun spot activity seen and the earth because devastatingly cold.  

Yep,  if the Standard models doesn't include these effects, there 
conclusions are generally untrustworthy and should be flushed.  
Besides they do not agree with empirical? data.   

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

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

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / 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.misc,s
i.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 5 Aug 1995 05:24:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3vb9a7$hh0@starman.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: 

>
>Tom, the world of physics will never take your work seriously
>until you learn how to insult people effectively. Take Richard
>"that's Dick to you" Feynman: now he was a world-class flamer.
>Look at how far it took him: Nobel prize, the position of
>Richard "more Dick!" Chase Tolman Professor of Physics at 
>Caltech, stamp collecting, girls, the whole nine yards. Need
>we mention ol' Albert "kiss my pimply German ass, shit-licker" 
>Einstein. Even P. A. M. "what of it, you wanker?" Dirac has
>you beat six ways from Sunday.
>
>Take a freshman physics course. That'll get you started in
>the right direction. And don't get discouraged, you're just
>in the awkward phase of your, uh, cycle.
>
>Regards,
>Richard "you know what" Schumacher

Dick, don't get so bent out of shape because I named a body part after you.

I could have asked if you make shoes for Clinton and Schumer.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 /   /  Russian "warm fusion" invention of 1960 demonstrated gravity/time effects
     
Originally-From: "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Russian "warm fusion" invention of 1960 demonstrated gravity/time effects
Date: 5 Aug 1995 09:06:58 +0400
Organization: Alexander V. Frolov, Private Account

This information is prepared from 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.
             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 o/u system is
most serious problem for development of such sort energetics//

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:
cuddy5 cudenalex cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / 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: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 10:08:31 -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"

I normally do not reply to a question twice. However, in my first answer,
I said "If memory serves, Jed said that the flow was measured on the input
side of the system." Now, having checked back through my e-mail from Jed,
I can state categorically: Griggs uses a precision flowmeter that is
installed on the input side of the system. Therefore you can put whatever
lingering doubts you may have had to rest: the figure of 8.3 pounds per
gallon is appropriate, and even a tad conservative, given the water
temperature at the point where the flow is measured. (Note for lurkers:
water expands as temperature rises, and so the weight of a gallon of water
declines with temperature. Thus it is important that the figure used for
the weight of a gallon of water reflect the temperature at the flow
meter.) A more accurate figure for that temperature, taken from my
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, is 8.31405 pounds per gallon, which
gives a larger output power from the device, not a smaller one. Thus if
you make this correction, the percentage COP goes up, not down. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug  7 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
