1995.08.11 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 14:44:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:55:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3vu0ro$q9c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0308951445510001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> > ***{Arch, it isn't freedom of speech if the behavior contains an actual or
> > an implied threat. Nobody has a right to threaten others. However, in
> > Barry's case it is just noise. My advice to you, therefore, is this:
> > lighten up. Believe me, you don't want to get involved with lawyers and
> > courts over something silly. You have better things to do with your time.
> > Barry may bark with his fur humped up on his back, as you say, but he
> > doesn't bite, so you should simply consider the source and move on. Live
> > and let live. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>   I don't know which side of CF you are on Mitchell, whether for or
> against or straddling the fence. 

***{Arch, I'm a weird guy. The only thing I'm "for" is the truth; and the
only thing I'm "against" is falsehood. The way I separate the two is by
trying, whenever an issue arises, to identify the side which has the
strongest arguments. My position, in all cases, is simply the position of
the side that I believe, at that moment, has the strongest arguments. Thus
while I am in a learning mode about a topic, my positions--and hence what
I seem to be "for" or "against"--fluctuate. But once I fully understand a
topic, so that I do in fact *know* which position is the strongest, the
fluctuation ceases, and my opinion becomes firm. In the case of whether
the CF results are as they appear to be, I now have a pretty firm opinion
that they are. I would not yet absolutely and totally discount a
refutation of the position, but I would say that such an outcome is very
unlikely at this point. --Mitchell Jones}***

It was the systematic attack on me
> that crossed the bounds of acceptable behaviour. How would you like it
> if someone singled you out and every week posted a paragraph that you
> are mentally ill.

***{If someone did that, I would simply humiliate him in public. It would
be easy, because I have not posted anything that could reasonably be
construed to support such a conclusion. You, however, has posted a number
of things that are, to put it mildly, near the edge. I hope you will not
deny that, because denial is not in your interest. Nobody ever solved a
problem by denying that it exists, and what I am saying here, with the
best of intentions, is that the insinuations that you are a bit loopy, by
Barry and others, are partially your fault. You need to get your own house
in order: create a situation in which you are safe from such posts,
because you will be in a position to publicly humiliate--using *words* not
legal threats--those who cast aspersions on you. The way to do that is to
cease clinging to indefensible positions. Don't focus on the conclusions;
focus on the arguments. Decide which side of an issue is supported by the
strongest arguments, and make that position your own. If you do that, you
will become intellectually formidable, and you will not have to use force
or the threat of force to keep people from picking on you. Truth be told,
you are not as dumb as some of these guys say you are, and you are
probably not crazy, either. The proof of that is that you argue well, on
occasion. Make up your mind to argue well on *all* occasions, and your
problems will quickly cease. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
>   Your advice is reasonable for most posts, but in this case there was
> damages. I had a physics journal annul my reserved space during the
> time Mr. Merriman attacked me. And it is a sad comment on our times.
> Are we to let the Internet be "worse" interaction between people than
> if people were face to face? I mean, if at a CCF convention speaker Mr.
> Merriman lectures on what he thought of my mental health would not be
> tolerated for one instant. So are we to let the Internet tolerate all
> behavior and call it freedom of speech. I say the Internet really  
> should not be many levels degenerate below the conduct of persons
> face-to-face.

***{Actually, on the internet the interaction is much better than when
people are face to face. The reason: the guy who is in your face will,
when he sees he is losing the argument, frequently employ threats or
violence. On the internet, however, that doesn't work: it is hard to punch
someone in the face when you have no idea where he is. Result: people are
forced to respond to arguments with arguments, and the truth tends to out.
The exception is behavior of the sort that you are engaging in now, where
a person who cannot defend himself logically turns to legal action as a
substitute. What you are doing to Barry is the closest thing to the
response of a thug as anything I can imagine, and it is not in either of
your interests. In my opinion, you are a guy with both problems and
potential. My guess is that you have had a hard life, and you have a lot
of issues to work through. You need to put this legal thing aside,
apologize to Barry for having brought it up, admit that your posts have,
on a number of occasions, seemed rather nutty, and move on. You can work
through your problems and become the person you want to be, but only if
you stop denying that this thing with Barry and the others is partially
your fault. They are, of course, wrong to say many of the harsh things
they said. It is mean spirited to kick a man when he is down, and it
undoubtedly reflects the fact that they have deep-seated insecurities and
psychological problems of their own. But you aren't in a position to help
them. You need to focus on yourself, identify the course of action that
will best facilitate your own growth and improvement, and follow it.
--Mitchell Jones}***

>    No, Mitchell, damages were done. And I am offering him a very easy
> way out of 500 bucks to post a health checkup. Has Mr. Merriman ever
> posted any of his personal financial situation. I do not know, but if
> he has, my guess would be that what he claims his financial (note
> claims) standing is and the 500 bucks is at odds. And of the approx 50
> attacks on my character, 500 divided by 50 is merely 10 bucks a post.
> No, it will cost me that much to have those medicals.

***{Why would you expose yourself to the insanity of establishment mental
health counseling? They have one of the highest suicide rates of any
profession. If that doesn't prove that they are incompetent, what could?
Most of them are nutty as a fruitcake, and if you get involved with them,
they may lock you up and throw away the key. That, I suspect, is not what
you want. Think about it. To repeat: you need to focus on yourself, and
follow the course of action that will best facilitate your
self-improvement. Getting involved with "mental health professionals" and
other wackos is not--repeat: *not*--in your interest. You need to stay on
the internet, continue to post, and when you discover that you are having
to struggle to defend your position, abandon it in favor of a different
one. That's the true course to self-improvement and mental health. The
rest of it is just bullshit. --Mitchell Jones}***

>    Your line of reasoning Mitchell reminds me of a commentator back in
> the late 1700's who following this Boston tea tax would protest against
> the colonists saying. Pay the tax, why get so riled up over something
> like a penny tax, my gosh.
>    Mitchell I would appreciate it if you knew the names of the lawyers
> who defended the European physicist. Please email.

***{Arch, I am trying to help you, not hurt you. I wouldn't tell you the
name of the kind of legal sleazeball you are looking for even if I knew
one. To repeat: the course of action you are following is not in your
self-interest. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Johan Wevers /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 13:28:23 +0200
Organization: Vulcan Academy of Sciences

guiness.mv.att.com!gfp <gfp@docunet.mv.att.com> wrote:

Please, if you don't need special parts of the whole article, don't quote
such a long piece of text.

>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.

Do you really think this is possible? Fusion energy sources are very
expensive to devellop and results are only to be expected in the long
term. That means that private companies will never devellop it - for the
moment, it isn't economically and if conventional fuel supplies run out
no-one will have the money to devellop it any more, we will be too busy
building fission reactors.

>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.

Except that television is luxury and energy required to run a modern society.

>Fusion will likly be realized from an entirely different approach, one
>that has not been thought of yet.

I don't think so. You would be amazed to know how many things are thought of.

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

JET has already reached it. The USA is hopelessly behind on fusion research
but they are now upgrading their knowledge by participating in the ITER
project.

--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers          ||    The only nature of reality is physics.
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl    ||    http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.     PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohanw cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 /   /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 11 Aug 1995 14:02:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>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.

The calculation of beta decay (to lowest order) uses a feynman diagram
which includes a virtual W. However it *is* virtual, that is it is *way*
off it's mass shell. So the presence of this virtual W doesn't affect the
kinematics of beta decay.

If the W were real then the resulting proton would have a fixed momentum
and the mass of the electron-antineutrino pair would equal the mass of the
W. This is not energetically possible since the W is way too massive.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / A Plutonium /  Status of CF, change name to what is really going on
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Status of CF, change name to what is really going on
Date: 11 Aug 1995 17:51:37 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

Unfortunately the name Cold Fusion has stuck. It is a bad name and
should only be used for muon catalyzed fusion.

I had long time ago proposed its real name as to what is going on in
these electrolysis experiments. It is not fusion.

It is a form of radioactivity. It is a violation of conservation of
energy/mass. The late great PAM Dirac hypothesized it. I gave it its
real name. It is Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization
(RSNM). It occurs everywhere in the universe, especially in the cores
of planets and stars.

It occurs *better* in magnetic fields than in electric currents run
through. It occurs more often in iron, than in test tubes of water or
water isotopes.

The Earth grows by RSNM. And RSNM + EM == Strong Nuclear Force.

There is ample evidence in the geologic record of plate tectonics that
the Earth was of a smaller diameter the more you retrogress in time.
There is ample bio evidence that the Earth was smaller and thus lighter
gravity, e.g. huge flying insects and plant rushes in Carboniferous.
The Earth is GROWING by RSNM.

Change the name of Cold Fusion and we do, we really  do have a new and
important science. It is a radioactivity science which explains the
inability to "show the experiment" on demand. 

Change the experimental set up to approximate the Earth's core on a
small scale. This means using Magnetic Fields, and not electric
current. This means using iron and whatever iron compounds compose the
Earth's core. This means, not looking for "fusion" but instead looking
for the creation of new neutrons which came from nowhere. Read Dirac's
book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS.

ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion!?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 21:35:48 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>* Secondly, hot fusioners are starting to get tired of the 
>paranoia of cold fusioners. The theory of the "grand conspiracy"
>against cold fusion, which pretend that the answers to all
>questions exist but are being kept under cover by corrupt 
>publishers, nasty scientific competitors and so on is bullshit.

In a way I was glad to see that the CF research didn't produce an
overnight miracle.  Can you imagine the major disruptions and
political instability which would result from the development of such
an energy source?

Suddenly a number of presently very wealthy oil-rich countries would
see their revenue-streams all but disappear and naturally they'd want
to take action to avoid this situation.  Likewise the huge
multi-national oil companies would run the risk of overnight collapse
(certainly there'd be a major slump in share prices).

Governments all over the world would loose major tax-revenues from
fuel and electricity taxes forcing a rise in direct taxation or some
form of license control over the CF technology (in effect "stealing"
some of the inventor's ownership in the patent).

I really do think that this could destabilize the world economy and
represent a *major* threat to world peace.

Energy is money and money is power, and the powerful are *very*
reluctant to yeild their control.

Do you think that any government would really allow the inventor of a
viable CF process to release the technology in an unfetted manner?

Sorry if this is a little off-topic but I couldn't find a
sci.physics.fusion.politics newsgroup :-)

*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / 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: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 22:29:05 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <40an57$qsv@agate.berkeley.edu>, cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff
Frost) wrote:

> Yo!  Barry,
> 
> Just wondering if you'd caught on yet to the Jed Jones/Mitchell Rothwell
> paradox.  The big questions are: 
> 
>         -are they twins?  
>         -were they separated at birth?  
>         -if you trapped them together in a lattice would they get even
>          hotter and hotter but still not produce any evidence?
> 
> I'll tell you my theory, brought about by my judicious use of the CLUE 
> technique (Coping with Lame User Emanations)--something I developed to
> protect myself from accidentally reading anthing written by yer buddy-
> in-law Mr LudWigged OutMindezi.)
> 
> To see how CLUE works, take one of Mitchell Rothwell's postings on Griggs,
> remove the "(****" thingies, and look at the style, use of rhetoric,
> language, etc.  One of the most telling attributes is the incredible
> wordiness of his posts--something "Mitchell" seemed to try to hide
> early on, but his natural verbosity soon took over.
> 
> So, Barry, I advise getting a CLUE.  ;-)  Think of it this way: If
> Mitchell and Jed are not the same person, how could you tell and what
> difference would it make?
> 
>         Have fun, & cheers,
> 
>                         Cliff
> 
> The above prompted by the last line quoted below, a truism if ever
> there were one!
> 
> In article <21cenlogic-0808951534180001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> >> 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 can speak for himself, but, for the record, here is my answer: given

***{Actually, Jed and I *were* Siamese twins! However, we were not
separated until we were 20. Just before separation, we played a long (105
move) chess game to decide who got to use the ***{ thingies. It was
fortunate that I won, since I invented the ***{ thingie, and would have
been very disappointed if I had to give up the right to it!  8-)
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / David Wyland /  Re: solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solar/fusion
Date: 11 Aug 1995 05:46:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom

>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. 
>
Oops!

Why don't I ever see these mistakes until _after_ I've posted! I
slipped a decimal point while looking right at it! The 273 sq m per
person looks right, but 4 x 273 is more like 1092! So we need a
10,000 sq ft house! Oh well!

This says that the "roof over our head" will contribute only 10-20% of
the required total, off by 1 decimal point. I think you could still do
quite well if you include industrial buildings, commercial buildings
and parking lots, but I have no figures to back it up. 

Sorry for the mistake. Mea culpa.

Dave Wyland




cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / 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: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:29:56 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 9 Aug 1995 00:54:47 GMT, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
wrote:

>ZoltanCCC (zoltanccc@aol.com) wrote:
[snip]
>: I looked at the spectrum of electrons emitted in beta decay and noticed
>: that:

>: 1. The spectrum is continouos, allowing the electron to carry off all or
>: part of the available energy. I don't know if this means that the electron
>: spectrum in our case would extend all the 20 MeV or so. 

>Yes it would.  The distribution of decay energies is given by the
>various phase space factors.  You will have some states of high neutrino
>energy, but also some states of high electron energy with most of them
>somewhere in between.

Is the shape of the energy distribution curve, the same for all known
beta decay reactions, or is it sometimes lop-sided in special
circumstances?

>: I imagine that the electron and
>: antineutrino will carry off some portion of the available energy, a
>: different portion in each case. 

>: 2. I noticed that there is a process "internal conversion" in which an
>: excited nucleus can deexcite by ejecting an electron from one of those in
>: the shells orbiting it. There are lines in the spectrum corresponding to
>: the different shells from where the electron is ejected. This may be
>: interesting for us since it is an example of such a coupling from the
>: excited nucleus to the electrons surrounding it. This reaction supposedly
>: happens by transferring a virtual photon from the nucleus to the electron.

>: Zoltan Szakaly 

>There's still no obvious way to prohibit the normal strong decay which will
>happen much faster than the weak decay modes proposed here.

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:
cuddy11 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 13:33:52 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

	no, i'm just a boring old extra-galactic astronomer.  all
	i know is that some stars are (called) variable, and some 
	aren't.

	in general astronomy, a variable star varies by orders of
	magnitude.  as far as i know that sort of variation is not
	going to happen with a star like ours (well, not 'til it
	goes bang, which is a long way away...)

	certainly a variation of say 5% wouldn't be surprising,
	but then is 5% a problem for solar power?  especially
	if it's over hundred-year timescales, when the technology
	is improving much more quickly than that?

	so if it is significantly variable, where `significantly'
	means a change which might change a solar power system from
	viable to useless, then i think astronomers would be
	surprised.  do you have a reference for the nature article?

	andrew


In article <DCyryp.29@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <DCxsrE.Dr2@festival.ed.ac.uk> A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>	come again?  our sun is variable?  do you want to be a 
>>	co-author - i think we have a real breakthrough on our hands
>>	here...
>>
>>	andrew
>
>I'm not certain I would call it a breakthough, since Nature is
>calling the cards.   But we do have a mechanism that seems to suggest 
>such a likelyhood as substantial solar varience over hundreds of years, 
>and it would have a varience that that correlates with the intensity of 
>solar activity or the lack thereof.  
>
>Are you a solar plasma physicist?   Has your Group tried to construct
>solar output based on long term emperical data such as extrapolated 
>tree ring growth or some other mechanically observable effect?  

-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 10 Aug 1995 18:06:07 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <40be1m$j7s@mercury.galstar.com> 
ichudov@galstar.com (Igor Chudov) writes:
>
>  ...    Since Archimedes Plutonium is not his real name,  ...
                
That is his real, legal name.  It was Ludwig Plutonium until recently. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | is also the British Olympic training  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | site.  Check out http://freenet3.scri
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |   .fsu.edu:81/Olympics/brits1.html 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / 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: 11 Aug 1995 18:54:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <40cv52$n2t@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 
>
>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.

My posts are "high volume" because people respond to them, and I answer
them. Other than a few ego tripping, smart ass, responses by the same
set of immature posters, most of the rational responses to my posts by
email and publicly have been positive. And I should take "advice" from
an adolescent who has an ego problem?

>>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?

You are projecting your paranoia to me.
I post for fun, and to share some of my ideas with the people who might
benefit from them. I don't expect 100% of the people to share my views,
but I do expect 100% of the people to be civilized. If they aren't, I
descend to their level in order to communicate with them.

>>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"?

Yes, this was a "childish flame", as I try to interact with people in
the mode they establish. Of course, the reference to your uncle, was a 
tongue in cheek reference to Timothy O'Leary.

>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:
cuddy11 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Ignition in TFTR (yes...)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR (yes...)
Date: 12 Aug 1995 00:03:40 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W.  
Cobb) writes:
> 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?

Yes, the idea is there, and it is backed up by recent numerical calculations
of Jardin et al, using mhd stability and systems code analaysis 
and based on their observed reverse shear experimental results.

> 
> 2) If there is what is it?
> 3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?

Their calculations suggest that, using a particular, presently
only theoretical, reverse 
shear field configuration, due to great reduction in 
radial transport near the center, in that small region
density and temp go way up and local ignition is achieved. Too
much transport elsewhere to ignite the entire core plasma, but
they predict that using 10 MW of heating, they could get Q = 4
from the local ignition.

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

Hard to say, but the calculations predict it. The reverse shear field
they theoretically need has some regions of q (rotational transform) that would  
normally be unstable, but they have some reasons to believe that other effects
stabilize it in this scenarion.
> 
> 5) Could the reporter have been confusing Breakeven with ignition?

No, its real ignition with D-T. They want to do the development in D-D
of course. In practice, it would take a year or so of incremental
experiment tinkering to achieve the desired field configurations---you
can;t just easily dial them in. This is the basis for the $50M 
request to extend life of TFTR by a year or so to do the experiment,
but looks like congress isn't going for it.





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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 12 Aug 1995 01:50:35 GMT
Organization: ORNL,UTK

David Naugler (dnaugler@sfu.ca) wrote:
: 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.

: 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."

Well no, even if you did get a 10cm cube of highly enriched
uranium deuteride it would not blow itself to "hell" if your idea of
"hell" is Hiroshima, 1945.  Of course those organizations with such
enriched uranium are not at all very keen at letting anybody get some to
try. 

If you do happen to get enough to exceed criticality you will get a nuclear
reaction, and enough localized heating to disassemble the thing until
it's no longer critical.  You will also get enough neutron radiation to
perhaps be lethal to nearby people with a couple of meters. 

Such events, called "criticality accidents", are obviously quite severe
and very undesirable but unfortunately have occasionally happened in the
industry in the last 50 years. 

However, that's a far cry from what a real nuclear explosive does. An
atom bomb is exceedingly more difficult as you have to get it squeezed
together enough to really have a lot of fissions before it disassembles
itself.  It's much harder and you have to be very clever to manage to
do this.  

It's why a nuclear reactor isn't going to ever incinerate a city in a
millisecond.  There's nothing keeping together fuel even when it's going
gangbusters with fast neutron fission.  Still, you can be an idiot if you
design something criminal like Chernobyl and allow a criticality accident to
start a fire. 

Indeed that was the basic difficulty of designing the uranium
bomb; and even more so for the plutonium (trinity/nagasaki) bomb.  The 
uranium type bomb design wouldn't work for plutonium because Pu has 
too many spontaneous fissions which would make too many neutrons which
would set off an 'early' reaction which would make the thing fall apart
too soon.   So they had to go for an even faster and more difficult
design.

: David Naugler
: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Laboratory
: Institute of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
: Simon Fraser University


cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / 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: 11 Aug 1995 22:34:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <40ds7j$g95@pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com> haley@pt9236.ped.pto.ford.com
(Bob Haley) writes:

>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

Bob, you did such a good job on analysing the "excluded middle"
approach to refuting my "cycles theory", I would appreciate it very
much if you would apply the same logic to refuting my theory in fact,
and not in spirit. Please don't shotgun, but focus on the most
fundamental steps first.

I might add that a couple of folks have objected to my definition of
time as:    time(X) = cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
but as I point out in the development of my theory, time, as used in
physical equations, is NOT universal but must be limited to the period
of EACH system, in order to obtain an accurate, symmetrical
mathematical model of physical reality. 

In other words, time is a local property which only applies to the
system under analysis. The external time used as a reference to compare
the properties within a system does not affect the physics of the
system.

The times associated with entrophy and the life of the universe does
not enter into the physics of an isolated system. ( As expressed in the
conventional equations of physics and mine. )

For example, entrophy time can be associated with the decay in LC
circuits and pendulums, but we consider time to be associated with the
frequency, rather than the rate of decay, of the oscillations.







cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Re:  Filimonenko's "Warm Fusion" Invention of 1960
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Filimonenko's "Warm Fusion" Invention of 1960
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 04:14:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Over a week ago, on Aug. 3, 1995, Alexander V. Frolov posted a translation of
an article by N. E. Zaev in the Russian magazine "Izobretatel i
Razionalizator."  Frolov's translation was carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's
"Fusion Digest," No. 4119, also dated Aug. 3, 1995.

Zaev's article stated that an electrolytic, heat-producing,
palladium-and-heavy-water cell was invented in 1960 by Ivan Stepanovich
Filimonenko, who would have been 36 years old at the time, that Filimonenko's
work received the support of prominent Russian scientists, that Filimonenko
received a Soviet patent on his invention in 1962, but that in 1968 all his
work was stopped and he was sentenced to six years in prison for actions
against the Soviet nuclear program.  Zaev wrote that Filimonenko's work was
resurrected in 1989 and 1990, with good results, but didn't say what happened
after 1990.

Frolov's translation of the Zaev article could be one of the most important
posts in the whole history of sci.physics.fusion, but there hasn't been any
followup.  Is everyone on vacation?

Where did Zaev get his information?  
Does anyone know how to contact Zaev?  
Does anyone know the address of the magazine in which Zaev published his
article? 
Has Zaev written anything else about the Filimonenko affair?

Was anything published about Filimonenko's work in the Soviet Union in the
1960s, or did the Soviet authorities keep the work secret?

What happened between 1962, when Filimonenko received his Soviet patent, and
1968, when all his work was stopped and he was sentenced to six years in
prison, allegedly for actions against the Soviet nuclear program?  One
speculates that his work caused a bitter controversy in Soviet scientific and
technological circles.

Was anything published about the new Filimonenko-type work done at Lutch in
1989-90?

If so, did the 1989-90 cells also operate at the 1000 degrees Centigrade
mentioned in Frolov's translation of the Zaev article?

A technical question:  how could an electrolytic cell operate at 1000 degrees
Centigrade without exploding?  (Is the reference to 1000 degrees a misprint?)

Does anyone out there who follows sci.physics.fusion know Russian well enough
to look for articles in Russian by Filimonenko or his colleagues?

For those of us who can't read Russian, have any translations been published?

If Zaev's article is right, then Filimonenko would have an extraordinary
story to tell.  Has he ever written it down?  Has he spoken about it?

Does anyone who follows sci.physics.fusion have any Russian friends or
colleagues who might know something about Filimonenko or his work?

Does anyone know how to contact Filimonenko?

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenTstolper cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 12 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
