1995.08.10 / David Wyland /  Re: solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solar/fusion
Date: 10 Aug 1995 07:39:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <807343226@f660.n690.z3.ftn> 3:690/660 writes: 
>
> Pa> : : We have a perfectly
> Pa> : : good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy
than
> Pa> : : we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than
>
> Pa> : Having deleted the first sentence, I heartily agree with this
rest.
> Pa> : Unfortunately, there is a good reason why this won't work for
most
> Pa> : countries:  too many people, and the attendant demands on land
use.
>
> Pa> That is ridiculous. For most of the worlds population enough
power
> Pa> could be generated for individual use with solar roofs. You need
solar
> Pa> farms only for industrial or high density populations. There are
> Pa> plenty of desserts in the world that are not usable for much
else.
>
> Pa> The *only* long term alternatives are solar
> Pa> or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
> Pa> fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using
too
> Pa> much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel
> Pa> is solar. It is not a question of converting to solar power but
rather
> Pa> of using solar in a way that is not environmentally damaging and
> Pa> is sustainable.
>
>Ho ho, ho, ho, he, hee, hee, whoooeeee
>
>Well, now that  I've gotten that out of my system, let's look at some
>facts. Better yet, let's look at some physics. Point, The energy usage
>here in Western Australia is about 520 petajoules p.a. for a pop. of
>1.6e6. And it isn't that cold here either!
>
>Assume the whole world wants to use energy at the same rate. After
all,
>no one wants to see the people in Ethiopia starving, or the people in
>Bangladesh being wiped out by a cyclone every few years. That would
>suggest that to supply that energy would require something like
250,000
>sq km of collector minimum, and more like 1.5e6 sq km after taking
into
>account pv efficiency.
>
>520e15 J/yr  /  1.6e6 people = 3.25e11 J/person/year (W.A.)
>3.25e11 J/per/yr  * 5.5e9 people/world = 1.7875e21 J/yr/world
>1.7875e21 J/yr/world / 3.6e6 J/kw-hr = 4.965e14 kw-hr/yr/world
>4.965e14 kw-hr/yr/world / 365 days/yr = 1.3698e12 kw-hr/day/world
>1.3698e12 kw-hr/day/world / 5 kw-hr/day/m2 = 2.73972e11 m2/world
>2.7397e11 m2 / 1e6 m2/km2 = 2.739e5 km2, i.e., about 500x500 km
>
>The figure of 5 kw-hr/day/m2 is the measured solar insolation. Now,
take
>into account that solar pv's are only, say, 15 % efficient, and the
>500x500 sq km blows out to 1,500,000 sq km, i.e., 1,200 x 1,200 km
>square.
>
>(would someone please check!)
>
Running the numbers for collectors can be interesting. Using the above
numbers as a guide, let's look at what we get just using the roofs over
our heads. The above 1.5e6 sq km = 1.5e12 sq m/5.5e9 people = 273 sq m.
For a 1000 sq ft house => 100 sq m with 4 people per house, we get just
about the area we need: 4 x 273 = 109 sq m. 

This calculation may be reasonable only for industrialized countries
where you can have a 1000 sq ft house per family of four or so.
However, the 250 sq ft/person does not have to be the roof of a house.
It just needs to be an area that can benefit from some shade. And it
seems to me that 5.5 kwh per person implies that person is benefiting
from industrialization, maybe even to the point of having a roof to put
some solar collectors on. 

The net result is that we could get the energy we need by using a
different kind of roof covering on our houses today, not counting all
the stores, industrial buildings, parking lots and other sources of man
made shade that would probably at least double the area without having
to put up a single collector in the desert. Or over all the highways
and railways that already exist. 

>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.
>
No change. This energy was falling on the ground, heating it and/or the
atmosphere anyway. If you convert some of it to electrical energy and
use that electrical energy to do something, the electrical energy gets
converted back to heat anyway, so you have _no change_ from the case of
no solar collectors. If you convert the electrical energy into
non-thermal energy such as chemical or gravitational potential energy,
etc., you would _decrease_ the thermal energy put into the
ground/atmosphere by this amount relative to the no-solar-collector
case. So the solar collector case either produces no change or - in
certain cases - decreases global warming.

[rest snipped ]

Solar is not the only energy solution, but it could be if it had to be.
And solar could do it having to assume anything new about energy usage.

Dave Wyland






cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion!?
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 12:10 -0500 (EST)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
-> The weak
-> point of cold fusion experiments is that thy cannot be repeated
-> at will. An an experiment which gives a different result every
-> time it is tried is essentially suspicious.
 
That should not be a weak point at all.  It is information and it how we use
the information that is important.  If one were to assume that you cannot
develop a theory because an action is not repeatable is a fallacy.  Rolling
dice, the roulette wheel, even playing black jack all give different results
every time you test them, but the theory has been so well developed that Las
Vegas and casinos throughout the world are making millions a day from them.
 
Likewise, no one can predict when a meteor will be seen or a meteorite will
hit.  The random nature of the event is very important in developing the theory
of where they come from and how they get here.  Once again, the theory must
embrace the non-repeatability of the event, not ignore the event and say that
meteorites don't exist since it is impossible to predict when and where the
next one will occur.  That would be the easy way out, and was tried for many
years before the evidence made such a "head in the sand" attitude impossible.
 
And of course such a attitude would have made QM impossible.  It was the
random nature of results that resulted in the development of the QM theory,
and verified its reality.
 
A similar argument was used in describing chaos for decades until finally
chaos theory caught up with the seemingly non-repeatable experiments.  And
of course decay of atoms is a random event, which is not repeatable as well.
 
Maybe cold fusion is a random event, or maybe it is extremely dependent on
something which is not being addressed.  Only research and a strong theoretical
approach will be able to decipher which.  But to ignore it will never get us to
the point of understanding, or maybe at some point using, it.
 
                                                             Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Mario Pain /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata: Why this sort of thing is unbelievable
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata: Why this sort of thing is unbelievable
Date: 10 Aug 1995 09:41:20 GMT
Organization: cea

<100437.530@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>In the Summer 1995 issue of 21st Century Science and Technology Editor 
>Carol White has given a "Look at the Life of Yoshiaka Arata". It seems that
>this extraordinary man started research in the days when war-torn Japan had
>no scientific equipment to speak of. To cut along story short he has used 
>his considerable engineering/scientific experience  in Hot Fusion to build
>a device which uses electrolysis to load deuterium into finely ground 
>palladium at the cathode, a Cold Fusion device.
>
>His device has run for as much as 3000 hours and produced 200 
>megajoules of excess energy, of which only 4 kilojoules can have been
>produced as chemical energy, at a rate of between 50 and 100 kilojoules 
>per hour. Surely the time has come for "official" science to stop discussing
>whether the effect is "real "and start comissioning some in-depth studies
>as to the explanations for such phenomena. The world needs safe energy
>production badly enough. For how long will the scientific establishment
>continue to fail the tesr?
>
God gracious ! Are there still some people to defend the paranoia
argument of the "extraordinary" man, who with "no scientific 
equipment to speak of" takes on the baddies of the "official" 
scientific "establishment" ? Yes, apparently there is. People 
like the "zorro" side of such characters, but personally I think
they should be confined to the kingdom they belong to: fiction.

If you believe in that source of energy, there is a very simple
solution: borrow money if need be, set up your own company, prove
the fact and get a patent. You will be rich very quickly. If you
do not believe enough to spend your own money, why do you think
the taxpayers should ?

Well, human intelligence is limited, but human stupidity is
boundless.


Mario Pain



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 10 Aug 1995 13:47:30 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <4050ck$89e@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

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

>>I beleive it goes:
>>*Kerplunk* Welcome to my killfile

>Just curious, why did you waste the time and data capacity of people
>all over the world by posting the childish flame?

No flame, this was serious advice. Allow me to rephrase it:
Tom's posts are very high volume, and the physicists on this
forum have demonstrated that they are very low content. If
these continual reposts are reducing you to "screams of
despair" as they are Dick, the most rational response would 
be to killfile the perpetrator and thus save your "time and data
capacity" by avoiding seeing the drivel in the first place.

>It is my perception that flaming does not cure pimples.

Not a flame - advice. I won't be following it myself, because
I find the contortions of a 'revolutionary physicist' in the face
of contrary evidence quite entertaining. I'm waiting for the "well,
they cant accept my ideas because they'd all lose their jobs" line
any day now - or have I missed it already?

>Maybe you had another reason?
>Perhaps, dipping into your uncles LSD stash?

Hrmm, a direct accusation: fortunately testable as I havent had my
hair cut since my post. Care to back up your accusation that I
have broken the law by paying for the appropriate residue test?

Or maybe this was just a "childish flame" that "wastes the time and data
capacity of people all over the world"?

Thought so.

M.
-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'Leary,				mdo4@le.ac.uk
Leicester Antibody Group.		"Is all that we see or seem 
(anti-KDEL & ABP1)			 But a dream within a dream?"
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / John Cobb /  Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ignition in TFTR
Date: 10 Aug 1995 08:03:26 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

All fight fellers, what's going on at PPPL these days?

I was just browsing through my copy of Science that usually comes to my house
way late, and I came across a small box next to the reporting on the fusion
budget that said tht PPPL is proposing to try to get some ignition experiments
out of TFTR's DT shots. I'm not sure the reporter had it all together, or
whether the idea was just bizarre. The gist of the article seemed to say
that there was an idea that TFTR's core might reach ignition since the plasma
physicists had discovered a way to control a certain plasma instability. The
reporter's language seemed a little disconnected. He did throw around 
Zarnstorf's name (did I misspell it again?).

So my questions are:

1) Is the reporter on drugs or is there really some idea like that
floating around?

2) If there is what is it?

3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?
Isn't that kind of like saying my wife's abdomen is pregnant but neither of
her legs are?

4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an extension of
DT run-times?

5) Could the reporter have been confusing Breakeven with ignition?

I'm really puzzled, especially since I've missed any conversation about it
here on s.p.f. It was in the Aug. 4 issue of Science, so it has been available
at least to the press for a week. What gives?

Puzzled in Peoria,

-john .w cobb

-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / guiness att /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:31:45 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

In article <3ubdg1$k9m@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu 
says...
>
>Hi Everyone -
>
>Below you will find FYI98 from the American Institute of Physics, 
>which contains recent news on the state of the fusion program.
>The House of Representatives passed an appropriation of only
>$229 million, down from this year's funding of about $370 million.
>The Senate is expected to begin considering fusion this week.  
>Meanwhile, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science 
>and Technology (PCAST) has just come out with a report on fusion 
>(summarized below) which urges higher funding.  To my knowledge,
>every major review of fusion has been supportive, yet Congress
>is in the mood to cut.  Fusion has been singled out this year for
>some reason, apparently because it's long-term basic research 
>which actually dares to have a practical goal in mind (high-energy 
>particle physics and nuclear physics and other "pure" areas of 
>physics were barely scratched by the House budget, by comparison).  
>Those who support applied research say it's too expensive 
>and will take too long; those who support basic research say
>it's too applied.  Sheesh!  Energy research (only a few billion
>dollars per year including private funding) is cheap considering
>that energy represents the foundation of the economy and 
>roughly 10% of GNP (that would be $500 Billion plus); what
>is spent on energy supply R&D is just a drop in the bucket.
>
>I urge those of you who support fusion to write or call you
>senators this week; on an arcane technical issue like this,
>a few voices can make a big difference, especially if they
>come from outside the fusion program.  Even a cut to $320
>million (envisioned by PCAST) will virtually eliminate any 
>chance of getting a demonstration fusion reactor within the 
>next 30 years.  (Barring some miracle, like a working Plasmak,
>of course.)  Still, it $320 million would be far better
>than $229M, which would virtually kill the program.
> 
>***************************************************
>
>FYI
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
>Number 98: July 12, 1995
>
>On the Front Burner: Efforts Underway on Critical Fusion Program
>Funding 
>                                                                  
>The first agenda item at yesterday's meeting of the President's
>Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was a
>report of the Fusion Review Panel.  The bottom line: the magnitude
>of funding for the Department of Energy's magnetic fusion program
>contained in the House Energy and Water Development FY 1996
>appropriations bill that is now on the House floor will have severe
>consequences for fusion research.  In response, PCAST members and
>administration officials will be conferring with the Senate Energy
>and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in an effort to
>increase fusion funding in their version of this bill, H.R. 1905. 
>Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) and his subcommittee colleagues may
>be marking up their bill as early as next week, so time is of the
>essence.
>
>The PCAST Fusion Review Panel was established at the last PCAST
>meeting in March (see FYI #52) in response to a congressional
>recommendation in last year's DOE appropriations bill.  Their
>67-page report was completed in three months, and released
>following yesterday's unanimous vote to send it on to President
>Clinton.  The panel was co-chaired by John P. Holdren and Robert W.
>Conn.  Holdren reported that there was unanimous support for the
>report's conclusions by all nine members of the review panel.   
>
>It is coincidental that the report was released while H.R. 1905 is
>on the House floor.  This bill provides, as this FYI is written,
>$229.1 million for the magnetic fusion program.  Current year
>spending is $368.4 million.  DOE requested $366.1 million (see FYI
>#84.)
>
>In the report's Executive Summary, three funding levels are
>addressed:
>
>The summary begins by stating, "we believe there is a strong case
>for the funding levels for fusion currently proposed by the U.S.
>Department of Energy (DOE) -- increasing from $366 million in FY
>1996 to about $860 million in FY 2002 and averaging $645 million
>between FY 1995 and FY 2005."  This provides funding for ITER
>construction and "a vigorous, complementary domestic program...."
>
>The Executive Summary continues with one of its major
>recommendations: "Although the program just described is reasonable
>and desirable, it does not appear to be realistic in the current
>climate of budgetary constraints; we therefore have devoted most of
>our effort to developing a budget-constrained U.S. fusion R&D
>strategy that, given level funding at about half of the average
>projected for the period FY 1996 through FY 2005 under the current
>DOE plan, would preserve what we believe to be the most
>indispensable elements of the U.S. fusion effort and associated
>international collaboration.  This strategy would cost about $320
>million per year, $46 million less than the U.S. fusion R&D budget
>in FY 1995."
>
>Although not written with the House version of H.R. 1905 in mind,
>the Executive Summary describes the consequences of a third, much
>reduced, fusion budget: "In addition to developing the strategy
>just described for a fusion R&D program funded at about $320
>million per year, we also have attempted to envision a program that
>could preserve key priorities at a still lower budget level of
>about $200 million per year.  We find that this cannot be done. 
>Reducing the U.S. fusion R&D program to such a level would leave
>room for nothing beyond the core program of theory and medium-scale
>experiments described above -- no contribution to an international
>ignition experiment or materials test facility, no TPX, little
>exploitation of the remaining scientific potential of TFTR, and
>little sense of progress toward a fusion energy goal.  With
>complete U.S. withdrawal, international fusion collaboration might
>well collapse -- to the great detriment of the prospects for
>commercializing fusion energy as well as the prospects for future
>U.S. participation in major scientific technological collaborations
>of other kinds.  These severe consequences - deeply damaging to an
>important and fruitful field of scientific and technological
>development, to the prospects for achieving practical fusion
>energy, and to international collaboration in science and
>technology more generally - are too high a price to pay for the
>budgetary savings involved."
>
>The Executive Summary of this report, "The U.S. Program of Fusion
>Energy Research and Development," concludes:
>
>"We urge, therefore, that the Administration and the Congress
>commit themselves firmly to a U.S. fusion R&D program that is
>stable at not less than $320 million per year."
>
>Holdren said that the Senate appropriations mark-up of the Energy
>and Water Development Act is "key" to the future of the program. 
>The subcommittee members (see FYI #14) will complete their
>consideration of the FY 1996 DOE budget as early as next week,
>although a definite date has not yet been scheduled.  Holdren wants
>a forceful push by the Clinton Administration.  Office of Science
>and Technology Policy Director John Gibbons said that he will be
>taking this report to the Department of Energy and the Office of
>Management and Budget, and said that briefings for Senate
>committees are being planned.
>
>Assuming that the House version of H.R. 1905 includes the $229
>million for fusion, the Senate figure will have to be considerably
>higher to get nearer to the $320 million level recommended by the
>PCAST report.  This will be a budget item finally decided by the
>all-important conference committee that will meet later this year
>to finalize the FY 1996 DOE budget.  House and Senate conferees
>typically split the difference on many items, making a high Senate
>figure critical to the FY 1996 fusion program budget.
>
>The thirteen senators on the appropriations subcommittee, and later
>perhaps senators on the floor, are going to have to, in the words
>of John Holdren, "go out on a limb" for the fusion program.  The
>degree to which they do this will depend greatly on the kind of
>support which is demonstrated for this program by not only the
>administration, but also by the American people.   
>
>###############
>Public Information Division
>American Institute of Physics
>Contact: Richard M. Jones
>fyi@aip.org
>(301) 209-3095
>##END##########
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer:  This posting prepared without using any
>government equipment.  (Can't use Gov't-funds for lobbying!)


Yes, I beleive fusion is the wave of the future, but should be developed 
by private enterprise, not by pampered PHD's on the public dole. There 
are no ulcers at PPPL. My personal gripe with PPPL is the load they gave 
me when I hired on as an engineer in the "RF HEATER" group-is that really 
your name? They said they had never had a layoff in 35 years.(Actually, 
600 people were let go when the Princeton-Penn accelerator was shut 
down). Anyway, after I got there, I found out the TFCX (a 5 BILLION $ 
machine) was only a proposal, and after I was there 6 months, they were 
denied 12 M in STUDY funds by Congress, let alone design funds. There 
was also a very stupid, nealy fatal accident. They then brought in a 
hachet man (who had worked for "Neutron" Jack Welch at GE), to 
drastically cut staff.I was given a vague and damming performance review, 
and told my University subsidised Mortgage would be foreclosed after my 
dismissal. The technicians were all given 5 scores, the max, since they 
were still needed. All except one fellow, who happened to be black, who 
was forced to resign, denying him unemployment benefits.Incidently, one 
of the techs spent most of the day cutting out wooden horses of pine, to 
sell at flea markets! 

Fusion today reminds me of television in the late 1920's, where huge 
contraptions, kludges really on the edge of materials science, that 
provided marginal or no results, and spun away on the verge of 
self-destruction.

Fusion will likly be realized from an entirely different approach, one 
that has not been thought of yet.  Also, by the way, the latest TFTR 
update (are they ever going to shut that machine down?) makes a big deal 
about reverse shear or something similar-didnt the ZETA of the fifties 
use something like that-it didnt work either. I would like to see the 
results of a  calculation as well-why dont they forget about the "wet 
wood burner two component torus" and just aim the beams at each other? 
(one D and one T).Power output for $ input might be more cost effective.

How is  Q=1 coming, by the way? (20 MW output doesnt cut it).

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Anthony Potts /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
     
Originally-From: Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response 
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 14:04:04 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics



On 9 Aug 1995, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> 
>   Good, good, bring the persecution my way. Will you Howard build my
> cross??
> 
I will gladly build a cross for you, if I could be sure that you would 
then let me nail you to it, and not try to back out. You are 
intellectually sub normal, and the world would be a more efficient place 
if you were not on it.

Neutering would also work fine, anything to stop the worldwide spread of 
feeble minds.

I just hate it when the uneducated are allowed an opinion, it is so much 
better over here, where the ruling classes have at least been to 
Oxbridge, and so we know the benefits of keeping the poor and stupid down.

Oh, for a return to the feudal system.

(As long as it starts shitting on people exactly one layer down from me *:-).

Anthony Potts

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpotts cudfnAnthony cudlnPotts cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Mark Higgins /  Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
     
Originally-From: mark@astro.queensu.ca (Mark Higgins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
Date: 10 Aug 1995 14:33:13 GMT
Organization: Queen's University Astrophysics

I'm doing a bit of research into synchrotron radiation, and
was working on the problem of the motion of a charged particle
on a curved field line (the first approximation is that the
charge will exactly follow the field line - of course, it
needs to spin around the field line to provide a force to
change its direction). I worked out the analytic solution for
a circular field line and checked it with a numerical simulation,
and everything worked out fine, but generalising it to the
case of a path with a slowly varying radius of curvature has
proved somewhat more challenging.

I presume that this work has been done before, possibly in
accelerator physics research, but haven't been able to find
any references (it may be that they're very old... I don't know).
I've been bashing my head against this problem for a few weeks
now, and haven't got very far, so I hoped that someone out there
might be able to give me some sort of clue.

Along these lines, the results from the circular field line case
has given some interesting results which I'm not sure are well-
known (maybe someone can tell me if they are...): a charge following
a circular field line (in some limits, like when the charge starts
parallel to the field line) radiates with a power which varies like
its Lorentz factor to the 4th power, instead of to the 2nd power
like one would expect from purely circular motion. Is this widely
recognised?

Thanks for any input,

Mark Higgins                    |    Queen's University Astrophysics
mark@astro.queensu.ca           |    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
http://astro.queensu.ca/~mark   |
                "If it's not true, it's well told."
                        -Old Italian proverb

Mark Higgins                    |    Queen's University Astrophysics
mark@astro.queensu.ca           |    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
http://astro.queensu.ca/~mark   |
                "If it's not true, it's well told."
                        -Old Italian proverb
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnHiggins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Phil Snyder /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@pppl.gov (Phil Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: 10 Aug 1995 11:03:45 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>All fight fellers, what's going on at PPPL these days?
>
>I was just browsing through my copy of Science that usually comes to my house
>way late, and I came across a small box next to the reporting on the fusion
>budget that said tht PPPL is proposing to try to get some ignition experiments
>out of TFTR's DT shots. I'm not sure the reporter had it all together, or
>whether the idea was just bizarre. The gist of the article seemed to say
>that there was an idea that TFTR's core might reach ignition since the plasma
>physicists had discovered a way to control a certain plasma instability. The
>reporter's language seemed a little disconnected. He did throw around 
>Zarnstorf's name (did I misspell it again?).

well, yes... two f's 
>
>So my questions are:
>
>1) Is the reporter on drugs or is there really some idea like that
>floating around?
>

John,
I don't have too much information, but I think I can point you in the
right direction.  I would guess that Bob plans an extensive post on this
topic in the near future.

The article is referring to the 'reversed shear enhanced confinement mode'
recently observed in TFTR.  I'll quote for you the abstract of PPPL Report
3117 'Improved Confinement with Reversed Magnetic Shear in TFTR' by F.M.
Levinton, M.C. Zarnstorff, S.H. Batha et. al.

	Highly peaked density and pressure profiles in a new operating
	regime have been observed on TFTR.  The q-profile has a region
	of reversed magnetic shear extending from the magnetic axis to
	r/a~.3-.4.  The central electron density rises from 0.45e20 m^-3
	to 1.2e20 m^-3 during neutral beam injection.  The electron 
	particle diffusivity drops precipitously in the plasma core with
	the onset of the improved confinement mode and can be reduced
	by a factor of ~50 to near the neoclassical particle diffusivity
	level.

So basically they've found a new mode (I can try to explain how they
achieve this mode if you're interested) where the electron diffusivity
is nearly neoclassical.  They also report peaking factors p(0)/<p>=7.4.

>
>3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?
>Isn't that kind of like saying my wife's abdomen is pregnant but neither of
>her legs are?
>

My very limited understanding is that, if the mode can be reproduced in
high-power 50:50 D:T shots, that the results might well be close to
scientific breakeven.  I've not heard anyone refer to 'core ignition'
but I guess they're saying that the transport power loss out of the
core (or I guess the total power loss out of the core) could be less 
than or equal to the alpha power produced in the core??  Any thoughts
on this one Bob?  

>4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an extension of
>DT run-times?
>

I think breakeven is the realistic goal.  We'll see what happens.  I
think they intend to run high power shots in the near future.

>5) Could the reporter have been confusing Breakeven with ignition?
>
>I'm really puzzled, especially since I've missed any conversation about it
>here on s.p.f. It was in the Aug. 4 issue of Science, so it has been available
>at least to the press for a week. What gives?

Bob's referred to it a couple of times in his discussion with Paul Koloc.
I'm afraid few serious fusion scientists read this group anymore...

>
>Puzzled in Peoria,
>
>-john .w cobb
>
>-- 
>John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
>		-Jimmy Buffett
>

Phil Snyder
grad student in plasma physics at princeton
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhil cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Robert Heeter /  Out of Context Quotes Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Out of Context Quotes Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 8 Aug 1995 01:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <4047md$4d2@seymour.sfu.ca> David Naugler, dnaugler@sfu.ca
writes:
>I think this is the appropriate forum to draw attention to a remark made
>by J. Robert Oppenheimer in a letter to George E. Uhlenbeck. The remark
>is quoted by Philip Morrison in this months Scientific American.

Yes, but keep in mind the context!

>Philip Morrison quotes J. Robert Oppenheimer: "So I think it really not
>too improbable that a ten centimeter cube of uranium deuteride (11.4 Kg)
>. might very well blow itself to hell."

David then goes on to claim that:

>Given the recent CF
>patent awarded to MIT, which uses language like, "It has been shown that
>such wavefunction overlap may be achieved via specific molecular orbital
>degeneracy conditions", significant credibility is given to the
>possibility that heavy metal deuterides from palladium all the way up
>the periodic table to uranium may possess the property envisioned by J.
>Robert Oppenheimer.

Of course, it might help to consider that Oppenheimer's quote
was regarding a *nuclear fission* explosion of the *uranium*,
with the fission neutrons moderated by the hydrogen trapped in
the lattice.  I hardly think the same thing is happening in Pd:H systems.
Unless they're trapping cosmic-ray neutrons which, when
slowed by the H, fission the Pd.  Of course, this particular process
is orders of magnitude to weak to account for results, show's 
no dependence on current or other electrochemical effects,
and in any case at the levels claimed it would be easy to see 
reaction products.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / 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: 10 Aug 1995 08:34:48 -0700
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <3vo4ks$59f@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:

: But chemical fuels are serverely limited in energy density and therefore 
: are fare too inefficient to be considered for interplanetary trips.  

Man in space today is an enormously over priced publicity
stunt. Eventually we may have manned outposts or even large populations
on other planets but the technology to make that practical is probably
at least a century away. Nuclear power might play a role or it might
not. It is of very little practical concern to anyone now.

: >: >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. 

: Because without anuetronic energy the desserats stand little chance
: of being teraformed to lush forests!

Keep your bloody hands off the ecology of this planet! Until we understand
vastly more about the earth we need to lessen our screwing around with
the global climate not increase it! In particular until we know how
to make the desert bloom without vast expenditures of energy we would
be well advised to keep our hands off the desert.

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

: Grid power for the couch pototo just doesn't cut it.   [...]

It may not cut it for your grandiose schemes but that is all to the
good.

: >Many companies invest in technological solutions that never pan out.
: >I cannot say that it is impossible to develop a clean safe form of fusion
: >but I think it quite unlikely with any foreseeable technology.

: But you are just blindly going on probabilities, as as such I
: too would believe what you believe.  But in this case the
: realities are different.  

Maybe, but maybe you are going on the blind faith of a true believer
who is committed to ideas that may be mostly but not entirely correct.
Solar power is a sure thing. All else is speculation.

: >In contrast solar can solve the problems economically and with
: >existing technology. Some parts of the puzzle such as energy storage
: >for transportation are not yet economical but they will be in
: >a foreseeable time frame. Were other forms of power required to
: >pay their full cost (including pollution damage) solar would be
: >widely competitive today.

: But I want my children to fly to mars and my grandchildren
: to nearby stars.  I wouldn't if the aneutronic fusion approach
: we have in mind wasn't a likely winner.  

You do not get everything you want.

I see colonization of distant solar system as essential for the
continuation of evolution. I do not say biological evolution because
we are transitioning into a time where evolution is consciously
directed and happens as much at the cultural as the biological level.
Colonization will almost certainly be with unmanned probes that contain the
accumulated knowledge of man and enough biological and physical material
to start life from scratch on a new planet, presumably one that could
never evolve life on its own. The technology for that is probably
several centuries away and we are not going to get there any faster
if we waste resources on silly or ill conceived ideas today.

Paul Budnik 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnBudnik cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Mark Higgins /  Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
     
Originally-From: mark@lola.phy.QueensU.CA (Mark Higgins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.el
ctromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
Date: 8 Aug 1995 17:23:37 GMT
Organization: Queen's University Astrophysics

I'm doing a bit of research into synchrotron radiation, and
was working on the problem of the motion of a charged particle
on a curved field line (the first approximation is that the
charge will exactly follow the field line - of course, it
needs to spin around the field line to provide a force to
change its direction). I worked out the analytic solution for
a circular field line and checked it with a numerical simulation,
and everything worked out fine, but generalising it to the
case of a path with a slowly varying radius of curvature has
proved somewhat more challenging.

I presume that this work has been done before, possibly in
accelerator physics research, but haven't been able to find
any references (it may be that they're very old... I don't know).
I've been bashing my head against this problem for a few weeks
now, and haven't got very far, so I hoped that someone out there
might be able to give me some sort of clue.

Along these lines, the results from the circular field line case
has given some interesting results which I'm not sure are well-
known (maybe someone can tell me if they are...): a charge following
a circular field line (in some limits, like when the charge starts
parallel to the field line) radiates with a power which varies like
its Lorentz factor to the 4th power, instead of to the 2nd power
like one would expect from purely circular motion. Is this widely
recognised?

Thanks for any input,

Mark Higgins                    |    Queen's University Astrophysics
mark@astro.queensu.ca           |    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
http://astro.queensu.ca/~mark   |
                "If it's not true, it's well told."
                        -Old Italian proverb

Mark Higgins                    |    Queen's University Astrophysics
mark@astro.queensu.ca           |    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
http://astro.queensu.ca/~mark   |
                "If it's not true, it's well told."
                        -Old Italian proverb

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnHiggins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Richard Blue /  Re: xtal + d + d ensemble
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: xtal + d + d ensemble
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 19:10:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Davies asserts that we skeptics are not considering the possible
effects of having some form of ensemble such as xtal + d + d.  The
reason I can't consider such a possibility is because you have never
clearly stated what it is you are proposing.  Please tell us more about
this ensemble that is supposed to change the way nuclei behave.

If we are to go from an initial state that has deuterons in this ensemble
to a final state that has fewer deuterons and more 4He it has to be possible
to describe these ensembles, at least to some extent.  If you can't describe
the transition which involves "cold fusion" in some detail what is the
point of dragging up the notion that there is an "ensemble" involved?

When I wish to describe a lattice filled with deuterons I would assume that
the deuteron wave function involves the position coordinates for the center
of mass of a deuteron and the relative coordinates internal to the deuteron.
There then has to be some sort of Hamiltonian, right?  Please describe how
making the deuterons part of an ensemble changes the Hamiltonian.  In
particular I would really like to see a demonstration of how you construct
a system that spreads the energy over the lattice but does not alter the
internal coordinates of each and every deuteron.  Does the ensemble average
of the proton-neutron separation increase, decrease, or remain the same?
Do the three- and four-nucleon correlation functions change?

I would say that the energy of the system is totally dominated by the
proton-neutron separation, and that I doubt anyone can dream up a way
to change that by placing the deuterons in an ensemble and still be able
to make a case for saying that this is still the initial state before
there is any energy release due to fusion.

As long as this ensemble idea is just a bunch of words with not one hint
as to what kind of ensemble this really must be no questions relating to
cold fusion can be answered.  It is just so much smoke!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Scott Little /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 10 Aug 1995 19:44:23 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <40917j$n3n@martha.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) says:

>It has to produce extra thermodynamic work.  Turning 100 watts of
>electricity into 110 watts of heat is a bad business decision.

Excellent point!  You can go to your corner department store and buy
a device (called a window air-conditioner) that delivers nearly 10000
watts of heat to specified location using only 1000 watts of electricity.
It does so by "pumping" heat from one location to another and, since we've
got plenty of heat energy all around us, such a device is generally the
best choice for efficient heating of a selected space.  Of course it can
also cool a selected space...something we Texans are rather in need of 
right now!

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Paul Karol /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 16:49:01 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 5-Aug-95 Re: Nuclear reaction
time s.. by MARSHALL DUDLEY@brbbs.br 
> Note that a beta decay is also a 3 body decay as well, when
> you count the antineutrino.

I thought it was a two-body decay, with an intermediate boson before the
electron and its neutrino were produced.

Paul J. Karol


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Bob Haley /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: haley@pt9236.ped.pto.ford.com (Bob Haley)
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: 10 Aug 1995 21:03:47 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Powertrain Electronics

In <40al0q$26@news.wsdot.wa.gov> Andy Fogliano <SFN@wsdot.wa.gov>
: writes: 
:
: Tom, I'm not a qualified physicist and cannot follow your arguments in

: detail but, I'm struck by one of your assertions that the bit is the
: most 
: fundamental piece of information. This assertion actually goes back to

: Aristotle who said that a thing can either be or it cannot. As an
: example 
: he would use say that EITHER you have a rock in your hand or you do 
: not. This form of black and white thinking has been perpetuated for
: 2000 
: years in Western Civilization and is known as Aristotle's Law of the 
: Excluded Middle. What is most interesting is that this law is being 
: challenged by the Fuzzy Logic people. Their example woudl run as
: follows:
: Suppose you had a pile of sand in front of you and I began to throw
: away 
: a grain of sand one at a time. At some point you would say "It's no 
: longer a pile, it has lost its' "pileness". Suppose, I re-add a 1/2
: grain
: of sand? At that point, it is both a pile and NOT a pile. The point of

: paradox.
: The point being that rather than think in terms of black and white, on

: and off, right or wrong, there may exist a continuum which includes
: such 
: phrases as "sometimes", "usually", "rarely", "always", "never" etc.
: So, perhaps, the bit is NOT the most fundamental piece of information.
: It may contain "shades of grey". Best - Andy  

Andy:

I bring issue with this 1/2 a grain of sand.  Grains come in many sizes.
To speak of a 1/2 a grain of sand is out of context with the statement
of the problem.  I could care less of the nonsense of the 'quantum being
a physical entity' or whatever the no-physics context of the thread is.
I am merely interested in your refutation of Tom's notions. It is true
that many of the 'theories' posted in this newsgroup contain principle
contradictions.  If you continue to read here, you'll have to get used
to it unfortunately.  Anyway, to continue:

'A pile' of anything is a set of at least one element. So, so long as
there is at least one grain, there is a pile.  Nothing "fuzzy" about it.
There is no 1/2 grain.  You imply the existence of another notion, SIZE.
This changes the context of the problem.

In the same vain, if I dig a hole (one cubic foot, say), and ask you
to put all but one shovel full of dirt in the hole, can you say that the
hole is no more?  Did the hole loose its 'holeness' ?

If you know fuzzy mathematics, then this should be no problem.  Fuzzy
logic is WELL DEFINED.  If one has the Membership function(s) then all
is known of the problem(s).  This is misused in your refutation of the
"one cylce" garbage in the post.  The refutation, in spirit, is correct
though.  I commend your efforts.

Regards,
Bob Haley

NOTE: In no way is my employer responsible for the information I convey.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhaley cudfnBob cudlnHaley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / 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: 10 Aug 1995 22:26:59 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <40an57$qsv@agate.berkeley.edu> cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)  
writes:
>> 
> Just wondering if you'd caught on yet to the Jed Jones/Mitchell Rothwell
> paradox.  The big questions are: 
> 

Have they ever been seen together at one time? :-)

Really, I have no desire to rile either one. I appreciate the 
info on cold fusion news that Jed supplies (even though I don't
appreciate the tone in which it is usuaually suppplied :-). I
have respect for people who put their ``money'' (time, effort,etc)
where their mouth is, and Jed seems to do so. Whether I think he
is misguided or not is a secondary issue there. And as for 
Mitch Jones, he is not that unreasonable for a CF believer :-).

I simply await more information, by and large.

While I am *extremely* skeptical about the reality of cold fusion,
I remain hopeful. (I was proposing research on cold fusion before
Jed Rothwell ever heard the names P & F---but I didn't have 
a very clear conception of how to do it. (nor do I now...))






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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Ben Weiner /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 10 Aug 1995 18:37:38 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:

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

>: Because without anuetronic energy the desserats stand little chance
>: of being teraformed to lush forests!

>Keep your bloody hands off the ecology of this planet!

Paul, I sympathize with your reaction, but I think you misunderstand.
Paul wants to terraform the desserts.  Not the deserts.

I think he had a bad experience with a Flaming Brandy Parfait as a 
youth, and since then wishes nothing more than to eradicate desserts
from the earth, replacing them with acres upon acres of green leafy
vegetables.

> Until we understand
>vastly more about the earth we need to lessen our screwing around with
>the global climate not increase it! In particular until we know how
>to make the desert bloom without vast expenditures of energy we would
>be well advised to keep our hands off the desert.

Even then, it might not be a good idea.  Nonetheless, the prospect
of mad terraformers setting off to melt the icecaps (or whatever)
and make the deserts bloom does not, shall we say, terrify me
from top to toe at the moment.  I'm more worried about the electron
hole that's opened up over the Antarctic since the expansion of
Usenet started sucking up all the free electrons.


Ben
"Contributing to killfile bloat since 1991"
-- 
"A megillah, told by a nudnik, full of tsimmes and signifying bubkes."

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Andy Fogliano /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Andy Fogliano <SFN@wsdot.wa.gov>
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: 10 Aug 1995 23:06:29 GMT
Organization: Washington State Department Of Transportation

Bob, thanks for the reply. I've only read one book on Fuzzy Logic and the 
pile of sand was what the author (forgotten) used as an example. If I 
remember correctly, he also cited the eating of an apple (i.e. at some 
point it is no longer an apple) as an example. Perhaps, you could explain 
or give me a better example?
To try to understand the "hole" example, I would assume that as you 
replace dirt in the hole, at some point, you would say, it is no longer a 
hole (maybe it's a dimple or dent). The point being it's in the middle 
between being and not-being something.

I just remembered the classic glass of water. Instead of 1/2 full OR 
empty it would be both 1/2 full AND 1/2 empty.  Best - Andy

If you keep the mathamatics simple, I may be able to understand it.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenSFN cudfnAndy cudlnFogliano cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / 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: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:07:15 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4081pc$cr0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> Just another thought that occured to me is that perhaps the input and
> output pressures are different and this difference is heating the water.
> After all if you drive water through a pipe with some resistance, the
> water will heat up converting the energy released by the pressure drop
> multiplied by the volume of water transferred.
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

Zoltan, that thought occurred to me also. Here is the e-mail message I
sent to Jed about it, more than a month ago:

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ----------------------
Thanks for the info on Infinite Energy. I sent in my subscription this
morning. Now, I need a couple of answers, if you don't mind:

(1) On Griggs' steam runs, what is the approximate head (vertical
distance) between the water level in the feedwater tank and the water
level in the effluent barrel? (I realize that the water level varied in
the effluent barrel, so an average figure will do here.)

(2) On the hot-water runs, were the feedwater tank and the auxiliary pump
still used, or did the flow utilize water-line pressure?

I hope the answer to (1) is that the head was zero, and that the answer to
(2) is that the feedwater tank and the auxiliary pump were still used. The
reason: if the total head across the system was greater than zero on the
steam runs, that constitutes an external energy source: the total amount
of energy is the same in every unit volume of a fluid at thermal
equilibrium, and equals the sum of potential energy, kinetic energy, and
pressure energy for a unit volume. When a unit volume of fluid moves from
the feedwater tank to the effluent barrel, the difference in total energy
is made available as heat. The amount of such heat would depend on the
head difference across the system. In the case of (2), the pressure drop
across the system from inflow to outflow could be significant if there was
a large head difference or if line pressure was used to drive the flow. In
both cases, the pressure drop would constitute an unaccounted heat source.
(Line pressure, for example, can be hooked up to a water wheel and used to
do work.)

--Mitchell Jones
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ----------------------

Does that sound like what you had in mind, Zoltan? I'll bet it does. In
any case, the following is the message I sent to Jed about 30 minutes
later, after I had done some more thinking:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ----------------------

Jed, don't waste your time responding to my previous message. I was making
up a list of criticisms, and I briefly thought I needed an answer to those
questions. However, further reflection suggests that I do not. A 3 foot
drop across the system would, in the hot water run, only add about 10
BTU's per hour. That's trivial. Likewise, a 50-foot line-pressure head
dropping to zero would only add about 172 BTU's per hour. That's still
trivial!

This is getting really sad. I am struggling to not appear to be an
unbounded optimist in all of this, and not succeeding very well, I'm
afraid. I must sound like a raving lunatic!

--Mitchell Jones
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ----------------------

I didn't elaborate on the above calculation in my message to Jed. However,
since I am posting it now, here are the details:

A pound of water dropping fifty feet releases 50 ft-lbs of potential
energy. Assuming that it is all converted to heat, that we have a water
flow rate (from the hot water run) of 5.382 gal/min, and that the weight
of a gallon of water at that temperature is 8.3 pounds, then we have
(5.382 x 8.3 x 50) divided by 60, which gives a rate of 37.23 ft-lbs/sec.
(Note: we divide by 60 to convert minutes to seconds.) Since 550
ft-lbs/sec equals 1 horsepower, we have 37.23/550 = .0677 HP. Since 1 HP
is about 2545 BTU's/hr, we have .0675 x 2545 = 172 BTU's/hr.

Needless to say, when we are dealing with an experiment that is converting
energy to heat at rates approaching 300,000 BTU's per hour, we can neglect
such small effects!

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 9 Aug 1995 15:48:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I for one believe that any thread should be allowed as long as it deals
with physics and not such legal matters like whether somebody should file
lawsuit against somebody else and stuff. I am really sick of erasing 4 or
5 messages every day on how I should complain about Archimedes Plutonium.
On the other hand the thread about space and time is interesting to the
extent that it deals with physics and it reminds me of the work of dr
Fredkin. Perhaps it should go to another newsgroup on physics but I don't
mind it or perhaps I don't mind it as much.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 12:38:22 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 8 Aug 1995 17:55:17 +1000, drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R
Davies) wrote:

>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>> ...
>>The work I refer to above takes confinement time into account. 

>The muon catalysed fusion is still a qualitatively different configuration
>so extrapolation is not valid.

>>There were speculations about coherent nuclear effects, but the problem 
>>in doing that is the extreme difficulty in bridgeing the 10^4 scale 
>>difference between atomic and nuclear dimensions and energies as well 
>>as the very short range of the forces in nuclei.  Coherent effects 
>>in materials are easy to come by because the forces that are strong 
>>enough to affect structure are of long range. 

>The coulomb barrier is not a short range effect and the effect of
>coherence is to increase the impact of the interaction at long range.
>eg energy transmission in a 1D line of resonators peaks sharply at the
>resonant frequency. 

>>>The Moesbauer effect has been used as an example to demonstrate the sort of
>>>ensemble behaviour that is possible in a crystal lattice.  

>>It has also been used to point out the special conditions that have to 
>>be met to couple to that lattice.  One of those is a low energy decay. 

>Getting the resonances tuned right is an obvious problem. Surface effects
>that vary the interatomic spacing might be relevant.
It just might be possible to force the desired resonance, by applying
an external oscillation at a sub-harmonic of the desired frequency.
Given the "sharpness" mentioned above however, it is possible that
this would require extremely fine tuning. In other words, perhaps only
very specific frequencies would work, and then one would have to hit
the nail right on the head as it were.

>>-- 
>> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno

>dave
>dave.davies@anu.edu.au


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:
cuddy09 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / 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: 9 Aug 1995 21:44:10 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-0808951534180001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> 
> Bottom line: Barry's demand that the Griggs result be confirmed by an
> "independent, reputable lab" is, in fact, a demand for the impossible. It
> isn't going to happen, because that isn't how paradigm shifts take place.
> The "reputable" labs will be among the last to get on board, not the
> first, if a shift does in fact occur.
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 

That could well be so, but it is, as you note, a big if.

Still, good labs are made up of good people, and good people 
would usually delight at the oppurtunity to be in on
some major new discovery. So I doubt it would be so hard to 
spur some interest from such folks, via a few intermediate steps
such as someone like S. Little investigating first.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / Igor home /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: ichudov@star89.galstar.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 9 Aug 1995 22:49:26 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma Cannibal Society

Actually this Archimedes Plutonium guy is also stupid (in addition to being
insane). Since Archimedes Plutonium is not his real name, anything related
to a fictitious character Archimedes Plutionium is just as fictitious 
as her net.persona and cannot be used in a libel lawsuit.  What libel
can be construed if the object of the alleged libel does not exist?

Another point here is that the proof that the claim regarding plaintiff
was in fact true represents the absolute defense. So whoever is trying
to hide behind this stupid pseudonym should be expected to be examined
by a psychiatrist after the defendant presents some of postings in
question.  That would sure be fun.

I think $200 is way too much, but say $5 may be OK.

Also, find an attorney first and blackmail only then.

	- Igor.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenichudov cudfnIgor cudlnhome cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 17:51:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

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

> In article <3vl3ou$n1c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >   I had not seen this post, and just earlier I had posted for the names
> > of lawyers. 
> > 
> >   I accept your apology only 1/2 way, Mr. Merriman. The other half, I
> > want you to send me 500 bucks and I will have a complete physical and
> > mental checkup at the hospital and post that checkup to the newsgroups.
> > 
> >    Your roughly 50 posts to the world accusing me of mental illness was
> > a vicious and systematic attack on my good name and future social well
> > being. If you had done it a few times I would have overlooked it. But
> > your behaviour was so vicious and extreme that I hope to set an example
> > in the future that others may follow.
> > 
> >    So, please send the 500 bucks and I will have the checkup and post
> > the results and then this whole matter is behind me.
> > 
> >    My address:  Archimedes Plutonium, c/o Dartmouth College  Hanover NH
> >  03755
> > 
> >   Thanks
>

***{Arch, you had my sympathy before you went on this legal kick. I didn't
like it a bit when people posted demands that you be booted off the net,
because I felt that you had as much right to be here as anyone else.
However, when you start to bring lawyers into what is clearly a personal
conflict, that's quite another matter. It takes a thick skin to post on
the internet. If you don't have what it takes, maybe you should be
somewhere else. Furthermore, you should be aware that if you acquire the
reputation of a person who responds to flames with legal action, you will
be shunned. What this means is that if you continue on your present
course, nobody will have to take action to boot you off the net: it will
be as if you are not there even if you are. Is that what you want?

Here is my advice to you: fight words with words. Practice makes perfect,
and if you practice using words to deal with people like Barry, you will
discover that you can defend yourself quite well without recourse to
lawyers. Remember the old saying: "Sticks and stones may break your bones,
but words will never hurt you." Believe it, and live by it. No better
prescription for growth and self-improvement has ever been uttered. 

One further point: Barry has apologized to you. He knows he went too far,
and has admitted it. Now it's your turn, for you have also gone too far. I
think you should now apologize to Barry for threatening him with legal
action. You guys need to shake hands and put this behind you, before it
gets way out of hand and wrecks both of your lives. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / 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: 9 Aug 1995 04:29:09 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <JBNiae-.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:

>Oh, come now Scott. You can't be serious. In the present climate of hysterical
>opposition to this research, you could never get a reputable independent lab
>like NIST to look at the GG.

Jed,

I'm aware of some pretty harsh skepticism but "hysterical opposition" sounds a
bit extreme.  Surely no rational person would exhibit such behavior.

I've never approached NIST on something like this but I have
talked to them about some new Standard Reference Materials... Basically, they
seem willing to do just about anything that they feel "a lot of people" would
be interested in.

I can't imagine that they would refuse to test it if we presented them with
"pretty good evidence" that the thing is really over-unity.  Probably what
would constitute "pretty good evidence" is not what we have so far (e.g. Griggs'
say so) but several reports from some not-so-famous labs which all agreed on 
the over-unity efficiency.  Don't you think that we could interest some 
not-so-famous labs in testing it?


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 00:27:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1995Aug9.180316.12539@ttinews.tti.com>,
Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> wrote:

>I sort of agree with you -- Archie seems to be a harmless (ahem)
>eccentric whom it easy to ignore if one chooses.

I think it is important to realize that the reason that we see
so much of Plutonium is because he gets so much attention.

>*BUT* -- this could be the tip of a very big iceberg. The net is
>wonderful because it is an uncontrolled publishing mechanism. If more
>people like Archie, who are much more fanatical and ruthless, start
>following in his footsteps, some kind of control will have to be imposed
>if only to avoid strain on net resources. We will all be the losers if
>this situation comes about.

It _could_ be the tip of the iceberg. In which case we need to develop a
tactic for dealing with his type. I don't agree that we need any more
controls because there are already to many short sighted controls. I
watched a couple of "moderated" conferences for several years and they
simply reflected the beliefs of the moderator. What he agreed with he
posted, what he didn't agree with he carefully chose those with which he
could successfully argue. Those who offered intelligent arguments that
he was unable to counter simply weren't published.

This is happening right now on _most_ moderated groups. Power tends to
corrupt and absolute power absolutely. See your congress in action for
a perfect example.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 10 Aug 1995 01:48:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Perhaps Oppenheimer was referring to the neutron slowing effect of
Deuterium as opposed to any cold fusion reactions. I don't believe that at
the time they would have been aware of any cold fusion effect in
deuterated metals.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Chris Jacobs /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: cjacobs@xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 10 Aug 1995 00:53:09 GMT
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses

tarl@tarl.net (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>In article <3vp2ua$8t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>>   I therefore feel it necessary to put a time limit on the acceptance
>> of a money order in the amount of 500 bucks as of 3 Sept 93. [95]

>And now, net-Blackmail! A new low, even for Ludwig!

I don't understand why jou consider it blackmail if Archimedes does not 
accept medical checkups paid by Barry Merriman if they are worth less 
than a certain amount or if the cash comes in after a certain date. In 
fact he is not obliged to accept any 'help' from Barry at all, and I 
would certainly not accept it if I were him. 

>> A physics journal reserved space and
>> later declined due to the Internet posts calling me "mentally insane"

>If you think _THAT's_ why they declined to publish your articles, you
>are mistaken. Matter of fact, one might presume paranoid delusions.

You pretend to *know* why these articles were rejected. Well, prove you 
know this indeed. I guess regardless if those articles are or are not 
below scientific standards you *cannot* know if they are because you 
never saw them. If I am wrong on this prove so by quoting *any* part of them.

I claim you cannot do this because you evaluate the articles of 
Archimedes _just_ from the reputation of Archimedes and not from the 
contents of said articles. 

That is you are now doing exactly the same that Archmedes claims said 
scientific journal did.



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencjacobs cudfnChris cudlnJacobs cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 11 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
