1995.08.30 / Mike Crow /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: Mike Crow <mcrow@viewlogic.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: 30 Aug 1995 01:15:40 GMT
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.

hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
>
> July 13, 1995, Marshall Dudley proposed in sci.physics.fusion a hypothesis
> regarding how cold fusion might occur in a palladium lattice. IMHO this
> hypothesis did not get the attention and discussion it deserves. The
> Dudley Hypothesis opens many questions regarding the quantum nature of the
> lattice, and thus provides opportunities for amateurs like me to learn
> from discussions of those questions.   For that reason I am quoting the
> hypothesis here with some questions and points regarding the possibility
> that electron tunneling might be the source of the energy observed.


Much cut out here.


> The electrolysis is a surface effect, needed only to load the lattice. The
> tunneling effect would be a volume effect, which would be enhanced by
> stirring things up *inside* the lattice with a current.  This suggests
> setting up a current *through* the lattice (in addition to the
> electrolysis current) might be fruitful.  Achieving this might best be
> accomplished by putting an oscillator inside the cell so DC current would
> still be the source of energy to the cell, but large current oscillations
> could be set up through the lattice (wire, film, beads, etc.)
> 

 How about a ring shaped lattice with inductors around it to induce a current 
through it. Use DC to load the ring with protons(?). If there are free protons 
in the lattice they should flow through the ring, pushed by the magnetic field 
from the inductors. As this "current" and loading increases there could be a 
chance that 2 protons would try to jump into the same inter-lattice site and fuse.

> Detecting an energy excess would be easier if loading occurred by putting
> the lattice inside a high pressure vessel containing hydrogen.  Wait for
> equilibrium, use permanent magnets, stir things up with the oscillator,
> turn it off, and look for excess heat.  Use the same experiment with low
> loading (pressure)  as a control.  It's a one thermistor (thermometer)
> experiment.
> 
> Well, there it is, more grist for the mill.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> 


  Mike Crow
  mcrow@viewlogic.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmcrow cudfnMike cudlnCrow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / David Naugler /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: 30 Aug 1995 01:28:52 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University

Marshall Dudley wrote:

>Normally Pd forms covalent bonds sharing electrons. However with hydrogen
>and deuterium it forms a ionic bond, with the hydrogen or deuterium losing
>an electron to the outer shell of the palladium. (from now on when I say
>hydrogen, I mean both hydrogen and deuterium). This leaves the palladium
>atom with a -1 charge.

I think the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis is worthwhile and parallels my own thinking. 
However, I think the chemistry described above is backwards. The relative 
electronegativities of hydrogen and most metals is such that the hydrogen is found as a 
-1 hydride and the metal is positive. For palladium with valences of +2 and +4 there 
would be two deuterides, PdD2 and PdD4 possible. Note that if these are formed at the 
cathode surface, free deuterium cations (deuterons) in solution
would be accelerated into 
a deuteride (anion). Quantum mechanics is rich enough to allow a decription of a process 
where the deuteron tunnels through the electron cloud of the deuteride. Note that the 
electrons provide a shielding of the mutual electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei, just 
like in muon calalyzed deuterium fusion.
 


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Stephen Mollins /  HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
     
Originally-From: spm@mti.iii.net (Stephen Mollins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
Date: 30 Aug 1995 03:25:44 GMT
Organization: iii.net subscriber

HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
I am a high school senior.  My homework assignment is to ask a scientist two questions.
1)  What do you do?
2)  What preperation did you need?

Please reply by e-mail to spm@mti.iii.net

TIA,  Tiffany Mollins

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenspm cudfnStephen cudlnMollins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 30 Aug 1995 03:33:29 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <41vhnu$t2m@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> dcwyland@ix.netcom.com
(David Wyland ) writes:

> As to reproducibility: The various CF experiments by many people seem
> to regularly, if not always, produce excess heat. (Some thermal, some
> flames.) Perhaps it is because of a widespread, consistent, pervasive
> error.

Not at all consistent or pervasive!  The vast majority of people who
run electrochemical cells see no excess heat at all; it's only a small
minority of people who do.

Even among that tiny minority of people who think there's some weird
thermal effect going on, there's still no consistency.  The
experiments are all different (nickel cathodes, palladium cathodes,
H2O, D2O, circulating versus noncirculating electrolytes, and so on),
and so are the results.  I see no evidence of reproducibility, which,
remember, means that if you do the same experiment you get the same
results.

The most likely hypothesis is that most people who work with
electrochemical cells aren't making any important mistakes, so they
don't see any weird effects.  A few people are making one mistake or
another, and they think they see some weird effect or another
depending on which mistake they make.

-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / John White /  Re: Dick Blue's theory (was Re: Off the deep end)
     
Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's theory (was Re: Off the deep end)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:41:48 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>	What is the pump power for the device, and what is the 
> reference for it?

I don't know the exact numbers offhand, but Cravens presented
his results at ICCF5, so the proceedings would probably be a
good place to look. Jed is familiar with Cravens work so
you might ask him.

>   A while back, there was some chatter in this 
> forum which erroneously (in my opinion) calculated the power by 
> confusing the internal pressure, P,  with the pressure drop Delta P.

My understanding is that the pump circulates the electrolyte through
a filter, and then through the cell. There is some pressure drop
across the filter, but virtually none across the cell. The power
dissipated due to this pressure drop is small compared to the
excess heat, which in turn is small compared to the electrical
power going into the pump motor.

Note that if a heat pump effect is operating, the power driving the
effect can be small compared to the apparent excess heat it generates.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 23:24:24 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Aug26.212055.2372@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

[Snip]
> 
> Jed suggests that Melich and W. Hansen have shown that the Harwell results on
> excess heat in an electrolytic cell were positive.  In fact, in their Nature
> paper, the Harwell group reported already that in one cell there was a
possible
> excess -- but this was an OPEN Pons-Fleischmann-type cell, with no control for
> heat simply from D2+O2 recombination in the cell.  They repeated the
experiment
> with closed cells (with recombiner) and found NO EXCESS HEAT.  

***{Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Suppose that we do
calorimetry on a conventional cell of the sort that merely separates
hydrogen from oxygen by electrolysis. In this setup, the electrical power
consumption has two effects: it heats the water, and it separates H2O
molecules into H2, which bubbles out at the cathode and is trapped, and
O2, which bubbles out at the anode and is trapped. Logically, therefore,
if we compute the BTU's added to the electrolyte (by raising its
temperature), and add that amount to the heat that results from
recombining the trapped O2 and H2, we should have a total that, assuming
no losses, is equivalent to the electric power consumed. Right? If this is
so, then does this not mean the heat resulting from recombining the H2 and
O2 is part of the *output* heat? Clearly, it does. And yet, if I
understand what you are saying, you advocate *not* adding the heat
produced in the recombiner to the heat produced in the water, in the
Pons-Fleischmann type cells, when computing the COP! Why would we do that?
All of the components of output heat, I should think, would be added
together, to determine total output heat, and the resulting total would be
divided by the BTU equivalent of input power consumed, to determine the
COP. Am I missing something here? --Mitchell Jones}***

The We have likewise
> shown that with open cells, recombination can account for APPARENT
excess heat. 
> Of course, this heat is not really excess heat at all, just chemical
> recombination of deuterium (or hydrogen) and oxygen.  Our results are 
> published in J. Physical Chemistry 99 (1995) 6966.

***{The chemical potential energy produced by separating the hydrogen from
the oxygen, it seems to me, is *obviously* part of the output energy. (It
sure as hell isn't part of the input energy!) Since the COP is the sum of
the various components of output energy divided by total input energy, it
seems obvious to me that this heat of recombination *must* be added in to
determine the total output energy. Bottom line: if I understand what you
are saying, you have made an error for which a schoolboy would hang his
head in shame. Did this *really* get past peer review? --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> Interested readers may also wish to consult Frank Close's book "Too Hot to
> Handle:  The Race for Cold Fusion."
> 
> The Green & Quickenden paper I quoted earlier tested the claims of McKubre
> and Hasagawa teams of excess heat in CLOSED cells -- and found *no*
excess heat
> in extensive studies using a good, closed calorimeter system.

***{Did they, too, *not* add the heat produced in the recombiner to the
heat produced in the electrolyte, when calculating the COP? If not, why
not? By what rationale would this not be part of the output heat? Pardon
me, but my mind is becoming a bit boggled by what I think you are saying!
If this is *not* what you are saying, please explain. --Mitchell
Jones}***  
> 
> --Steven Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:48:21 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <41se0n$6q8@netfs.dnd.ca>, Bill Page wrote :
[snip]
>K. Kamada, et. al. in "Electron Impact p-p and d-d Fusion in Molecules
>embedded in Al", Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy
>Systems (ICENES'93), p.168, Sept. 1993, and "Anomalous Heat Evolution
>of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron Bombardment", Proc. ICCF5, present
>evidence of high energy protons and alpha particles from experiments
>involving the bombardment of hydrogen imbedded in a dense sub-surface
>structure by (relatively) low energy electrons. Again, by conventional
>theories fusion is not expected but anamalously high particle emission
>is observed for *both* implanted protons as well as deuterons. From
>this, the authors conclude that p+p+e -> d + nu as well as
>d+d+e reactions must be occurring. The presence of high energy
>alpha particles in both cases suggest further secondary reactions,
>possibly of the three-body kind mentioned above.
>
>Kamada, et. al. theorize that it is not electrons from the primary
>electron beam, but rather secondary electrons excited from the Al K and
>L shells that are involved in the putative weak interactions.

Or perhaps the x-rays thus generated, that C. Cagle suggests act as a
trigger to fusion.

>
>Cheers,
>Bill Page.

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:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / David Wyland /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 29 Aug 1995 16:56:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <41gj8o$mc6@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
writes: 
>
>In article <41db44$n8g@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu
(James Vanmeter) says:
>>
>>
>>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>>
>>>4.  We are developing a solar stove device for use primarily in
3rd-world

..snip
>
>>In a similar vein I've always thought that solar-powered
refrigerators,
>>to preserve food in remote areas, would be of great benefit to 3rd
world
>>peoples.  But could such a device be efficient enough to be
practical, 
>>and could it be mass-produced cheaply?
>>
>>
>Does anyone remember the Servelle (sp?) refrigerator?  It was gas
powered
>and worked by a "bubble" pump as I recall.  I think not so efficient, 
>but I think it competed very favorably with electricity considering
the
>difference in price of gas and electricity.  Should work just fine
with
>solar heated fluid.  As I recall the hot side did not have to be all
that
>hot.
>
>Tom Droege
>
The Servel refrigerator worked well and was competitive in price with
electric units. The electric units finally won, but I'm not sure why.
One reason might be that most houses have outlets, but it would take
additional work to run a gas line to the kitchen where the refrigerator
sits.

Heat powered refrigerators are alive and well. (The name seems like an
oxymoron!) The refrigeration units of hotels and other large buildings,
called chillers, use a heat driven chemical cycle. A few years ago, an
experimental solar powered air conditioning system was installed in a
Bahamas hotel. Aparently it worked but had all kinds of plumbing
problems: leaks, etc.

The Servel cycle used Ammonia, as the carrier gas, as I recall. It is
not inherently expensive, just specialized. Solar powered refrigeration
seems like a natural. Solar powered air conditining seems like a real
winner: the hotter the sun gets, the better the air conditioner works!

I know a little about this because my brother is a retired mechanical
engineer who worked for Amana, the refrigerator people. Heat powered
chemical compressor cycles are discussed in most good engineering books
on the theory and practice of refrigeration. Good luck in your efforts!

Dave Wyland

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Mario Pain /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 29 Aug 1995 16:54:13 GMT
Organization: cea

Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:
>Mario Pain wrote:
>
>>A theory is scientific when you can devise an experiment whose failure >would
>>falsify it (at least if you accept Karl Popper's definition). If the same
>>experiment gives different results (even if the same result may repeat >itself)
>>every time it is tried you cannot do scientific work. That does not mean >you
>>cannot continue the search for hidden parameters in your experiment so as >to
>>devise THE experiment that could put CF in the scientific field. It only >means
>>that CF is not AS YET scientific.
>
>Studying a phenomenon that is not entierely understod is not scientific?
>I think you should read a book on science history and you will see
>that this is all science.
>
     I think we are quibbling on words around an idea we could agree on. There is
a difference between a SCIENTIFIC WORK and a SCIENTIFIC OBJECT (theory or 
experiment). I agree with you that studying any phenomenon can be done in a
scientific way provided certain methodology is used.
     What I am saying is that you can study the hypothesis of existence of
flying pigs in a scientific manner, but the theory of the existence of the said
pigs will only become a scientific object once you have experimental repeatable
evidence.
     And please, flying pigs have only been chosen as an example. Nothing to 
do, of course, with CF.



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / David Wyland /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:11:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <MATT.95Aug24020527@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>
matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) writes: 
>
>In article <hZAAzvb.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>
>> The level of reproducibility and predictability in CF experiments is
much
>> better than it was in other fields at this stage in their
development. Ed
>> Storms reports that roughly half of his pre-tested cathodes work. 
>
>I think that a lot of people in this group have no idea what
>reproducibility means.  When I talk about something being reproducible
>I mean that two different groups do the same experiment and get
>the same result.  I explicitly do *not* mean that two groups do 
>vaguely similar experiments and that both of them get results that
>seem kinda weird in one way or another.
>
>If one group boils water in an electrolytic cell and find an excess
>of He(3) but no excess of neutrons, while another group boils water
>and finds neutrons but no He(3), then this is not a replication.  It
>is a contradiction and it suggests that at least one of the
>experiments is wrong.
>
>It's been six years, and I still haven't even seen a single example
>of replication in "cold fusion".  That's one of the reasons I no
>longer think it's worth taking seriously.
>-- 
>  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth. 
"We 
>  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said,
"and 
>  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."

Reproducibility is proportional to knowledge of the mechanism the
experiment is designed to test. We can conduct very reproduceable
experiments -- now -- in physics and chemistry because the experiments
are designed to find what we believe is there. They isolate the
particular mechanism we wish to demonstrate. For example, a rock and a
feather of the same weight will only fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

As a famous scientist (I forget which one) once said, when you are
doing basic research, by definition you do not know what you are
looking for. When we have isolated the interesting mechanism, we can
design an esperiment that will show it in its clearest form. In the
mean time, we have to wait for better results. You can't come back from
where you haven't been.

As to reproducibility: The various CF experiments by many people seem
to regularly, if not always, produce excess heat. (Some thermal, some
flames.) Perhaps it is because of a widespread, consistent, pervasive
error. The premise that CF does something that current theory cannot
explain is interesting enough to at least discover the mechanism,
whether a thermal effect or a consistent error source.

Dave Wyland

"Most of the sound from the game is the roar from the bleachers. The
players don't make much noise. They are busy."

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Bill Page /  three body fusion
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: three body fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 16:53:36 GMT
Organization: dsis

[Because the original topic seemed confused, I have reposted this
as a separate message.]

In article <41midb$biv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) says:
>
>I hereby thank Dr. S.E.Jones for faxing me a copy of Kasagi's paper.
>
>The authors bombarded deuterated titanium targets with low energy (up to
>150 keV) deuteron particles. The target titanium was deuterated up to a
>level of 1.2, particle emissions were detected at various angles with
>various filters and barriers.
>
>...
>
>The authors propose to explain both the anomalous proton and alpha
>emissions by the same mechanism. This is a proposed reaction:
>
>D + D + D  -> p + n + He4     (21.62 MeV)    (5)
>
>If this reaction were to happen it would properly account for the observed
>spectra of protons and He4 particles. The trouble is that this is a three
>body reaction and should only happen very rarely if observed at all. This
>means that if the experimantalists are right there is an unknown
>amplification mechanism that causes a significant increase in the reaction
>rate of the (5) reaction.

Yeong E. Kim and Alexander L. Zubarev, Department of Physics, Purdue
University have examined three body inelastic scattering cross-sections
in their ICCF5 paper "Uncertainties of Conventional Theories and New
Improved Formulations of Low-energy Nuclear Fusion Reactions". They
show that an explicit solution to the three-body Schrodinger equation
exists which gives a much higher fusion rate than simple extrapolation
from two-body reactions. Kim and Zubarev reference Kasagi's experimental
results.

>...
>                                              Based on our previous
>discussions here this may have something to do with the electron being
>caught in between the deuterons. At a loading factor of 1.2 there are many
>titanium atoms that have two deuterons in their outermost shells. Such a
>coupling may be relevant from cold fusion point of view.
>
>I would kind of be curious about the spectrum up to 1 MeV of incident
>deuteron energy, because at that level enough energy is available to emit
>a neutrino and finalize the electron capture. Of course that reaction is
>mediated by the weak interaction and would happen rarely it still might be
>relevant for the fusion to occur.

K. Kamada, et. al. in "Electron Impact p-p and d-d Fusion in Molecules
embedded in Al", Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy
Systems (ICENES'93), p.168, Sept. 1993, and "Anomalous Heat Evolution
of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron Bombardment", Proc. ICCF5, present
evidence of high energy protons and alpha particles from experiments
involving the bombardment of hydrogen imbedded in a dense sub-surface
structure by (relatively) low energy electrons. Again, by conventional
theories fusion is not expected but anamalously high particle emission
is observed for *both* implanted protons as well as deuterons. From
this, the authors conclude that p+p+e -> d + nu as well as
d+d+e reactions must be occurring. The presence of high energy
alpha particles in both cases suggest further secondary reactions,
possibly of the three-body kind mentioned above.

Kamada, et. al. theorize that it is not electrons from the primary
electron beam, but rather secondary electrons excited from the Al K and
L shells that are involved in the putative weak interactions.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Richard Blue /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:00:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Kasagi et al. bombarded a titanium deuteride target with 150 keV deuterons
and observed the charged particle spectrum emitted.  The claim is that
there are "anomolous protons" at 17 MeV included in that spectrum.

Before we read too much into this result I think a simple discussion of
the likely experimental problems is in order.  First we need to ask the
basic question, "How clean is the experiment?"  In other words what is
there in the target other than titanium and deuterium, and what is in the
beam other than 150 keV deuterons?

To address the target question I remind you that titanium is a reactive
metal, particularly when heated.  In fact the process of preparing the
titanium deuteride target likely involves an exposure of fresh (hot?)
titanium to a deuterium atomosphere.  However, things like oxygen and
nitrogen may also be present and will also be incorporated in the target.
Even if the target is "pure" as prepared it probably won't stay that
way through the course of the experiment.  It is a pretty sure thing
that there will be contamination of the target with things like oxygen,
nitrogen, and carbon.

In fact if the experimental spectrum does not show peaks that are identified
as arising from reactions with contaminants I would begin to suspect that
this matter has not been given proper consideration.

Now the beam is also subject to contamination.  Many accelerator facilities
that provide beams of 150 keV deuterons are also used extensively as
neutron generators via the D + T reaction.  If that is the case with the
machine used by Kasagi, et al. a finding of stray tritium in the target
chamber, on the target, and in the ion source is not as weird as the
suggestion that a three-body reaction is involved.

The contamination issue is not the only question I would raise.  In order
to obtain a charged-particle spectrum at all the experimenters have to
deal with the fact that elastic scattering of deuterons from titanium occurs
with very high probability.  The detection systems has to sort out those
elastic scattering events from whatever else is going on.  The D + D
reaction also produces neutrons which interact with the detector and with
all the surrounding materials producing, possibly, charged particles from
secondary reactions.  This is not an easy experiment to perform correctly.

Now if the experiment is sufficiently clean and if the proton peak in
question is at a sharply defined energy there are some measurements that
could be made to help sort things out.  As far as the tritium contamination
question goes, one way to address the quesiton is to deliberately introduce
the suspected contaminant to see what happens.  As I said the evidence for
the target contaminants should be in the spectrum already.

Then I would suggest that spectra be taken at several angles, at several
beam intensities, and with several different targets.  In particular before
I would jump out of the bathtub to go running naked through the streets
to assert that titanium is working magic I would repeat the measurement
with a zirconium deuteride target, for example.  As for three body processes,
just think how they should depend on beam intensity relative to the
usual two body processes.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Richard Green /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: rlgreen@Eng.Sun.COM (Richard Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:04:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.

> I think that the one you are thinking of was near Chicago, and was
                                                     ^^^^^

I believe the explosion you are referring to actually occured at the
Port Chicago Naval Weapons Facility (~ 40 mi. from San Francisco) in
California.   

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrlgreen cudfnRichard cudlnGreen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / 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: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 18:15:18 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <41t7pq$p1k@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2608951545420001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > ***{True enough. Fortunately, my house is made of steel! :-) --Mitchell
> > Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the same steel used to construct the hull of the Titanic?
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

It doesn't matter, Barry! When my ship begins to sink, I switch to
another! You should try it! :-)

Seriously: I argue to win. Therefore, when I discover that the arguments I
am using are weaker than those being used against me, I switch positions,
and argue the other way. In the unlikely event that you guys managed to
come up with some telling blow against, say, the validity of the Griggs
result, I would simply say: "Hey, neat--so Griggs is wrong after all!
Fancy that!" At that point, I would begin to post messages using that
argument to attack whomever was still supporting Griggs--probably Jed--and
you would be left standing there, all dressed up with no place to go! What
would you do then, Barry? You would be all primed for a long-drawn-out
struggle, at the end of which you would triumph and look like a hero, and
you would just wind up frustrated! It would be really sad!  
 
--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:37:56 -0900
Organization: none

In article <199508281527.LAA17059@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:



[snip]

> How do we know there is a radius within which the net charge is
> positive?  The electrons experience this same charge, do they
> not.  If there were not a net positive charge in the vacinity
> of the Pd nucleus the electrons would not hang around!  The
> Pd lattice would fall apart.
> 
> Thus Marshall Dudley's hypothesis starts to fall apart also.
> The key question is what is the interaction potential between
> a proton and a Pd nucleus.  That is an experimentally determined
> quantity.  In what is essentially an analog to Rutherford's
> original alpha scattering experiment one can determine the electrostatic
> potential as a function of radius by scattering protons from Pd
> nuclei.  The electrons DO NOT shield the positive charge at a
> sufficiently small radius to result in cold fusion.  That is an
> experimental fact!
> 
> Before one should begin to construct theories as to why a loaded
> Pd lattice becomes the site for a special type of nuclear process
> I would say there should be some evidence to support the notion
> that the basic physics is somehow altered.  Certainly the electrostatic
> interation between protons and this lattice can be explored further
> by anyone who has a serious inclination to do so, but just making
> a wild hypothesis that derives from an unrealistic picture of
> atomic structure does little to further the cause for cold fusion.
> 
> Dick Blue

The proposed alteration of the basic physics occurs not in the proximity
of the Pd nucleus, but in the outer shell of the Pd atoms.  The difference
is in the fact that the conditions proposed for multiple porpoising H
nuclei is a low energy condition, and a highly likey condition. I believe,
under the hypothesis, that one would expect a large portion of atoms to
ceate the condition of two H nuclei separated by high density electron
probability cloud. 

What I have suggested is the possibility that this condition creates an
energy barrier around the cloud. Due to the presence of two H nuceli in
the vicinity, it seems the probability density would, at some minimal
distance, exceed 1; i.e. the shielding effect would induce a probability
density with an aggregate charge exceeding one electron. From a particle
point of view, there would be an electron between the H nucei.  This
electron would be surrounded by an electrostatic energy barrier created by
the H nuclei.  In addition, it is proposed that there might be an
attractive force due to spin alignment. A magnetic field established by
such an effect, if present, would create an additional energy barrier
around the electron, plus further attract the H nuclei together.  The
attraction effect of spin alignment would be subtle and would not manifest
itself if the relative momenta of the H nuclei were high.  A low energy
condition is a pre-condition.  High energy scattering experiments do not
seem relevant to this hypothesised condition. 

It seems the hypothesized conditions would greatly increase the potential
for fusion, especially if a high energy 4th particle were involved. 
Further, I suggested the possibility that, if there truly is an energy
barrier around the hypothesised shielding electron, electron tunneling
could occur, eliminating the shielding, thereby adding thermal energy to
the H nuclei. 

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/26 (intro)
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/26 (intro)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 22:46:32 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <fusion-faq/glossary/intro_809524148@rtfm.mit.edu>, Robert
F. Heeter wrote :

Given the size of the FAQ, I personally, would prefer to only see a
pointer to the FAQ posted at regular intervals, rather than the FAQ
itself. How do others feel?
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:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Pepe Clown /  Re: HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
     
Originally-From: Pepe the Circus Clown <Pepe@BarnumBailly.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
Date: 30 Aug 1995 19:50:38 GMT
Organization: Barnum & Bailly Circus

spm@mti.iii.net (Stephen Mollins) wrote:
>HELP with HS homework, 2 easy questions
>I am a high school senior.  My homework assignment is to ask a scientist two questions.
>1)  What do you do?
>2)  What preperation did you need?
>
>Please reply by e-mail to spm@mti.iii.net
>
>TIA,  Tiffany Mollins
>

1) Not much.

2) Not much.

BTW, I'm not as scientist, I'm a circus clown.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPepe cudfnPepe cudlnClown cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Erik Francis /  Re: Neutrinos have mass?
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrinos have mass?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 20:51:08 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:

> This raises an interesting point. If relativistic mass is dependent
> upon frame of reference, then the amount of gravity contributed to the
> universe as a whole, would also depend upon frame of reference (for
> all matter!). This being the case, then how can anyone ever say,
> whether the universe is open or closed? 
> Or is gravitational mass independent of relativistic mass?

It's more complicated than that.

Actually, attributing gravitation to a single number like energy 
(a.k.a. relativistic mass) or mass (a.k.a. rest mass) is misleading, 
and in fact contrary to our best theory on gravitation, namely general 
relativity.  In general relativity, gravitation is not generated by a 
scalar, but rather a tensor, and the components of that tensor are 
related to the energy (not rest mass) of the particle and its 
momentum.  (Yes, this means that photons generate gravitation.)


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE // uuwest!alcyone!max, max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA, USA // 37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W // GIGO, Omega, Psi // the 4th R!
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- // 1love // folasade
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ // mc2? oo?  Nah. // http://www.spies.com/max/
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / John Lewis /  Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: 30 Aug 1995 20:30:53 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF


Strange to find you quoting a Marxist, Jed!  And not a very good historian
at that.

More appropriate might be Drake, or Redondi's latest.  Probably the essential
point was that *any* observations which seemingly contradicted doctrine
were wrong, and it was up to the philosopher to figure out why, or else
he would - not prosper!

Redondi emphasises that Galileo was one of the "stars" of Italian thought,
with much support among the powerful, including the Pope himself.  He
fell afoul of the Spanish-Italian conflict, which was political, military,
and religious.  He was regarded as an enemy by the Jesuits (who were, of
course, Spanish-dominated), whose astronomers he had humiliated.

Redondi's truly controversial view is that the prosecution of Galileo
for espousing heliocentrism was something of a smokescreen - Galileo's
enemies wanted him tried for atomism.  The charge of advocating helio-
centrism was comparatively harmless - a matter of discipline; but the
charge of holding to atomism would have been lethal, as the contemporary
interpretation of atomism put it in conflict with the contemporary
interpretation of the doctrine of the Transubstantiation.  The Holy
Inquisition tolerated such dissent with the Church's core
doctrines for about the length of time necessary to burn the dissenter.

Redondi's thesis on the true nature of the persecution of Galileo is not,
I gather, regarded as proved by historians of science, but is plausible
enough, given the nature of 17th century religious politics.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 21:50:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In response to Mario Pain's comments mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL
DUDLEY) writes:
 
   "->      May be. And may be not. History books may one day say: "In the end
   -> of the XX century, among other signs of the decay of rationalism and a
   -> revival of irrational and/or religious beliefs, a small sect pretended
   -> that energy could be obtained from matter in very simply and semi-magical
   -> small and simple devices".
 
   You are covering a lot of ground there.  It seems that candles, kerosene
   lanterns, gasoline stoves, batteries and a host of other very common items
   fall into that catagory."
 
Also, Pu fission powered thermoelectric batteries used in space craft and in
the equipment left on the moon. These devices generate electricity for
decades. They are particularly relevant to this discussion for three reasons:
 
1. By the standards of late 19th century science they are black magic.
 
2. They go far beyond the limits of chemistry.
 
3. They are small, simple, reliable nuclear power generators. Unfortunately,
   they cost a lot and they are not safe to be around!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 01:41:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <41vgso$ke6@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
David Wyland  <dcwyland@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Servel refrigerator worked well and was competitive in price with
>electric units. The electric units finally won, but I'm not sure why.
>The Servel cycle used Ammonia, as the carrier gas, as I recall. It is
>not inherently expensive, just specialized.

Ammonia is highly toxic. The Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) is
35 ppm -- rather small don't you think? This refrigerator was shunted
off the production pathway because of health and safety concerns that
are more than sufficient. As someone that has only recently recovered
from serious lung damage caused by the presence of ammonia in an
unlabeled product I can testify that you would never want to encounter
this problem -- or have your children killed or permanently injurred
by this stuff.

Now, mind you, ammonia isn't the only product that could be used in
this manner (did you know that Einstein was one of the two patent
holders on this method?) So why have additional household dangers
if there is an option?

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:51 -0500 (EST)

hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) writes:
 
-> Shielding:
->
-> The shielding effect theorized I believe is due to a quantum equivalent to
-> the Faraday Ice Pail Effect.  This effect occurs when a charged object is
-> placed inside a conductor (e.g. an ice pail).  No matter where the object
-> is moved inside the conductor, exactly the right amount of electrons are
-> attracted to the locality (on the surface of the conductor) of the charged
-> object to cancel it's electrostatic field outside the conductor. Motion of
-> the charge inside the conductor is not detectable outside the conductor.
-> From outside the inside charge always appears to be located at the center
-> of volume of the conductor.
->
-> Quantum shielding:
->
-> For the hypothesized shielding to occur, the probability of shell electron
-> presence in the locality of the proton would have to change in an amount
-> exactly right to cancel the field outside the shell. As a proton
-> approached the shell, the probability would have to approach 1.
 
Yes, I had referred to this phenomenon previously as an increase in the average
density of electrons in the area of the shell near the proton.  You are correct
that the macroscopic equivalent would be the Faraday shield effect.
 
-> As a
-> proton approached the shell it would materialize an electron at it's
-> location.  If this theory is correct, electron capture should be a very
-> common thing, and the corresponding radiation effects should be seen. Is
-> there evidence of this? From what I have seen lurking about here for a
-> while, there may be some evidence for electron capture in minimal amounts.
 
Actually you would not expect to see any electron captures by a proton or a
deuterium nucleus.  There is an energetic disadvantage (that is the reaction
would require energy, as opposed to releasing energy) for this reaction.  The
situation is of course different if you fuse 2 hydrogen or deuterium atoms at
the same time, in that case you have sufficient energy available to allow the
energy absorbing capture.
 
-> Electron tunneling:
->
-> If the hypothesis for (a) and (b) and my assumptions above are true (a
-> very very big "if" I know!), then there is some probability the trapped
-> electron can escape by tunneling through the barrier.  If this happens,
-> the two protons would suddenly have acquired potential energy, which would
-> quickly be converted into kinetic energy via. repulsion.  Immediately
-> after the tunneling all other energies, excluding the newfound potential
-> energy, should otherwise remain unchanged. (Is this true?)  There would be
-> no ash.  Case (b) would be similar to case (a), but probabilities of and
-> magnitudes of positive effects would be reduced.
 
I think there may be a misconception on exactly what tunneling is here.  First,
I don't see there being a barrier, at least not in the traditional sense.
Tunneling is result of the wave funtion characteristic of subatomic particles.
Basically, you have the center of the wave function, but the actual particle
has a probability of being anywhere within the wave function, the probability
of the particle being any particualar place at any particular time is defined
by the wave function.  This will not give or lose any energy normally, as in
the next instant it can be elsewhere in the wave function, losing or gaining
the previous energy gain or deficit. The center of the wave function does not
jump, just the instanteous position of the apparent particle. So unless you
have a barrier, such that a jump over the barrier prevents the particle from
returning, nothing long term happens.  The fusing of two nuclei, or the capture
of an electron would present such a barrier, but simply being electrostatically
attracted to an area near a proton would not in my opinion.
 
-> Imagine a motionless proton sitting at an electrostatically neutral  point
-> in the shell.  If such a proton can make quantum leaps (for what ever
-> initiating reason, but reasons with a fixed energy cost, and equal
-> distance jumps being equally probable) in any direction with equal
-> probability (here's another big "if" I would like comments on) it should
-> experience large outward forces from quantum leaps inward, thereby gaining
-> 10 times the energy from a fixed distance leap inward than from a leap
-> outward.
 
Once again I think you are misapplying how tunneling works.  Without a barrier
to prevent return of the particle to it's neighborhood, you really have nothing
more than a probability distribution, which does not "jump".
 
Thanks for your input.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:57 -0500 (EST)

wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) writes:
 
-> K. Kamada, et. al. in "Electron Impact p-p and d-d Fusion in Molecules
-> embedded in Al", Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy
-> Systems (ICENES'93), p.168, Sept. 1993, and "Anomalous Heat Evolution
-> of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron Bombardment", Proc. ICCF5, present
-> evidence of high energy protons and alpha particles from experiments
-> involving the bombardment of hydrogen imbedded in a dense sub-surface
-> structure by (relatively) low energy electrons. Again, by conventional
-> theories fusion is not expected but anamalously high particle emission
-> is observed for *both* implanted protons as well as deuterons. From
-> this, the authors conclude that p+p+e -> d + nu as well as
-> d+d+e reactions must be occurring.
 
I was unaware of this paper.  Thanks for sharing it with us.  This is exactly
the reaction proposed by me earlier that might explain the lack of neutrons
when two nuclei fuse in the outer shell of a metal such as palladium.  Proof
that such a 3 body reaction does indeed happen would I think bolster the
theoretical foundation for cold fusion in metallic crystals.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / David Wyland /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:15:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Aug26.212055.2372@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
writes: 
>
>Thanks to all for responses regarding the solar stove development. 
Possible
>applications in 3rd-world countries will be considered with the help
of BYU's
>Benson Institute, which has considerable experience already in these
countries
>with solar homes, water-supply systems, etc.  One solution to the
problem of
>focussing the sun on the bottom of a pan or plate without risking eye
damage is
>to look *through* the inflatable parabolic mirror at the focussed
bright spot,
>since the aluminized plastic transmits some light.  Automatically
tracking 
>the sun's motion
>is probably not feasible for an inexpensive stove with effectively no
electrical
>infrastructure present, but the heating may be sufficiently fast and
the hot

.. snip

Two thoughts. One, how about having a black-on-the-bottom hot plate at
the focus of the mirror with 3 temperature indicators sticks at 120
degree angles around the circle? I am thinking of the kind that change
color with heat, so no electronic hardware is involved. When one starts
getting cool, you tilt the mirror a little in that direction. The
temperature indicators could be attached to the mirror instead of the
hot plate. You can then keep the cooking plate level, perhaps by a
counterweignt or other arrangement. Attaching the sensor sticks to the
mirror would prevent tilt error in the sensors while allowing the cook
to have level pots. 

If the bottom of the hot plate is black anodized aluminum or equvalent
with pin fins to catch all the radiation, 100% black body style,
tilting it should not be a problem, and it wouldn't have to be at the
exact focus either.

Thought number two. You can have electric power for aiming if you want
it. It's called solar cells. The power for moving a balanced,
lightweight plastic mirror should be quite small at 15 degrees per
hour. Four solar cells plus a single cheap integrated circuit chip
could supply the power and sense the direction as well. Small solar is
now common: witness solar calculators. Solar power for control is
potentially practical and cheap, if it provides a significant added
benefit.

Good luck!

Dave Wyland


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:48:58 -0900
Organization: none

In article <41tv49$etp@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> In article <41midb$biv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote :
> 

[snip]


> >I would kind of be curious about the spectrum up to 1 MeV of incident
> >deuteron energy, because at that level enough energy is available to emit
> >a neutrino and finalize the electron capture. Of course that reaction is
> >mediated by the weak interaction and would happen rarely it still might be
> >relevant for the fusion to occur.
> >
> >
> >Zoltan Szakaly
> >
> I would like to propose an alternative.
> Deuterons already embedded in the surface layers of the titanium, are
> neatly arranged in rows and columns, by the crystal lattice.
> Consequently, when a surface deuteron is struck by a high energy
> deuteron from the beam, frequently a second deuteron is "lined up"
> precisely behind it, and both of the initial deuterons now collide
> with the third one. This means that in a lattice, this "chance" three
> body collision, is far more likely, than it would be in a gas.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

Another alternative might be that pairs of  porpoising deuterons
(speculated in the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisted thread) might
momentarily, but frequently, form a weekly linked triplet with a shielding
electron.  The system of two deuterons seperated by an electron would be
held together magnetically via aligned proton and electron spin.  A
collision along the axis of such a triplet would actually tend to create a
four body collision: D + D + e + D.
A test of this speculation might be to place the target in a magnetic
field axially aligned with the deuteron beam.  If an increase in reaction
rate occurs, the speculation is confirmed sufficiently to consider further
examination.

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 29 Aug 1995 19:20:01 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <41ul7n$47o@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:

>      But the most probable issue to all this debate is that it will be
> desperately and utterly forgotten. Having confidence in the "judgement
> of history" has never been very productive.

Probably true.  After all, it has already been almost completely
forgotten!  Six years ago, when Jones and Pons/Fleischman distributed
their original preprints, there was a lot of interest in the physics
community.  Everyone talked about it, and lots of people proposed or
even started research projects.  That interest died away pretty
quickly, though.  Nowadays, it's only a tiny minority of physicists
who bother to remember that those papers ever existed.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Jim Adam /  How is fusion doing?
     
Originally-From: jadam@tcmail.frco.com (Jim Adam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How is fusion doing?
Date: 29 Aug 1995 20:02:40 GMT
Organization: Fisher Rosemount Systems

Y'all,

How is fusion doing these days, in layman terms?  Is 
there a FAQ I could read that covers the high
points?  

Mainly I'm interested in knowing what sort of 
progress has been made recently.  (a)  Have you
been able to get atoms to fuse (in a controlled
environment, natch)?  For how long has this fusion 
lasted, if so?  (b)  What are the hurdles you're
trying to overcome?  Do you need more powerful
containment fields, or is it the means of inducing
heat & pressure that are lacking?  Or are you
trying to find ways to increase the ratio of energy 
out to energy in?  (c)  What happened to plans for 
"larger" fusion facilities?  (d)  What are the
main roadblocks right now?  Are they
theoretical, or are they mainly mechanical /
technological?

Thanks,
J. Dorgon Adam

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjadam cudfnJim cudlnAdam cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Sci-Lib-Cowell- /  Fusion FAQ Correction: Solar Fusion
     
Originally-From: Sci-Lib-Cowell-Room-Staff <cowell@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion FAQ Correction: Solar Fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 20:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz

I read in the FAQ that the sun avoids the problems of proton-proton
hydrogen burning by engaging in the CNO cycle, but as far as I can 
tell the CNO cycle in main sequence stars does not dominate energy 
generation until core temperatures are approx. 2*10^7 K. The sun is
using the p-p 1,2, and 3 cycles [p+p->d+e^+ +neutrino, d+d->He(4);
He(3)+He(3)->He(4)+2p; He(3)+He(4)->Be(7), Be(7)+e- ->Li(7)+neutrino,
Li(7)+p->B(8)->Be(8)+e^+ +neutrino, Be(8)->2He(4) ], which dominate
the energy generation by a factor of 10 or more in stars as cool as
1.5 *10^7K or cooler, like the sun (_Principles of Stellar Evolution 
and Nucleosynthesis_, D. Clayton).

If this reference is out of date, I would like to know, but otherwise
this minor correction should be put in the FAQ.  

Jake Mannix
Undergraduate Physics 
UC Santa Cruz
(draconis@hades.armory.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencowell cudlnSci-Lib-Cowell-Room-Staff cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese
rch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 29 Aug 1995 16:52:34 -0400

In the "WASHINGTON REPORTS/Clinton's R&D Budget Defers Pain to Unkindest Cuts
By Republicans" article that starts on page 65 of the April 1995 issue of
PHYSICS TODAY, you will find the following on page 71:
  
     The magnetic fusion program has escaped the draconian cuts so far, but
  some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are now stalking it
  with battle-axes.  The budget calls for $366 million, down $2.4 million,
  but the fate of the $740 million Tokamak Physics Experiment, which would
  demonstrate ignition burning of deuterium-tritium fuel, is in grave doubt. 
  
In an article titled "Clinton Administration Priorities Hurt Fundamental
Science" on page 12 of the July issue of APS NEWS, the Honorable Dana
Rohrabacher, who is Chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the
House Science Committee, writes:

  Over the past 40 years, U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $9 billion on
  fusion energy, yet none of the research has achieved "break-even," the
  point at which the fusion reaction generates the same amount of energy as
  is put in.  To provide commercial power, a fusion reactor has to generate
  more energy than is put in, and no scientist has been able to tell me that
  we will reach that goal in less than 40 more years.

In Richard Rhodes new book DARK SUN/THE MAKING OF THE HYDROGEN BOMB, on page
306 he writes:

     For the Super or the Alarm Clock or both, Teller proposed exploring the
  production and use of a gray salt-like compound of a lithium isotope and
  deuterium, lithium6 deuteride, as a fuel alternative to liquid deuterium. 
  Lithium, a soft, silvery-white metal, atomic number 3, was already in use
  in the American bomb program in the form of lithium fluoride slugs, which
  were irradiated in the Hanford reactors to produce tritium.  Theoretically,
  lithium in a bomb would pick up neutrons from D + D reactions or from
  fission and make tritium in situ; the T would then react with D, releasing
  energy and making more neutrons, which would repeat the cycle. ...

On page 541 Rhodes writes:
  
     The room-temperature Shrimp device used lithium enriched to 40 percent
  lithium6; it weighed a relatively portable 23,500 pounds and had been
  designed to fit the bomb bay of a B-47 when it was weaponized.  It was
  expected to yield about five megatons, but the group at Los Alamos that had
  measured lithium fusion cross sections had used a technique that missed an
  important fusion reaction in lithium7, the other 60 percent of the Shrimp
  lithium fuel component.  "They really didn't know," Harold Agnew explains,
  "that with lithium7 there was an n,2n reaction [i.e., one neutron entering
  a lithium nucleus knocked two neutrons out].  They missed it entirely. 
  That's why Shrimp went like gangbusters."  Bravo exploded with a yield of
  fifteen megatons, the largest-yield thermonuclear device the US ever
  tested.  "When the two neutrons come out," says Agnew, "then you have
  lithium6 and it went like regular lithium6.  Shrimp was so much bigger than
  it was supposed to be because we were wrong about the cross section."

There was an article published by Paul Bennett on page 20A in the 1979
February 25 issue of our local St. Petersburg Times newspaper that was titled
"GE-operated plant makes Pinellas a prime target."  In the article Bennett
states:

     The Pinellas plant's work is naturally classified; however, documents
  obtained from the Department of Energy reveal major activities.  The plant
  manufactures "neutron generators," devices that "ignite" a nuclear
  explosion like a spark plug sets off gasoline. ...

In doing a literature search for our Eckerd College Ionics Research Project, I
came across a series of articles published from 1949 to 1966 in the journal
REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.  The articles gave detailed instructions on
how to make relatively simple gas discharge tube D + D and D + T neutron
generators and how to measure the neutrons produced by them.  My log entry
dated 8/15/74 shows we could get 10g of lithium deuteride from Merck & Co. for
$73 and a 50 liter lecture bottle of 99.5% pure deuterium for $58 from
Matheson Gas Products.  The Ionics Lab already had all the vacuum and
electronic equipment we would have needed for such a fusion reactor research
project.  Given the information in Rhodes book, I suspect that if we had gone
ahead with the fusion project we may well have been able to create a simple
low cost fusion power reactor.

Bryan
wallaceb@gate.net

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: 29 Aug 1995 20:54:25 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Horace Heffner (hheffner@matsu.ak.net) wrote:

: Hopefully you read all the way to what I wrote at the bottom of my post (a
: lot to ask - I apologize for the long post!) What I suggest there is the
: possibility that, looked at from another perspective, Dudley's Hypothesis
: of sheilded porpoising electrons implies that conventional quantum
: effects, non nuclear effects, might be responsible for excess energy.  The
: proposed effects do not directly involve the palladium nucleus, but
: hydrogen nuclei that approch each other from opposite sides of an electron
: shell - Dudley's porpoising electrons.  The distance between the nuclei
: required to obtain the suggested effect is only that distance sufficient
: to create an energy barrier to shielding electrons, not strong force
: distances.

By normal statistical mechanical principles how is this going to generate
any "heat beyond chemistry?"

It seems this could cause only moderate *reversible* changes.  I'd guess
that this would be covered by the known-to-be-very-complex thermodynamics
of hydrogenated metal systems that has been empirically studied for a while.

: -- 
: Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
: PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 16:03:03 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-quarterly

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
### Outline and List of Questions in the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 ------------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov.

# (Outline subject to change; this list current on February 26, 1995)

*** 1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section1-physics]
        A.  What is fusion?
        B.  How does fusion release energy?
        C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?
        D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?
        E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?
        F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
        G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?
        H.  What is aneutronic fusion?
        I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun? 
        J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion reactions?
        K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
        L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
                        (Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)
        M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
                        the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
                        Inertial confinement?)  

*** 2. Fusion as a Future Energy Source:
 2.1 Technical Characteristics
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part1-tech]
        A.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?
        B.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?
        C.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
                to useful energy?
        D.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?
        E.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?
        F.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
        G.  Are any of these materials scarce?
        H.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?
 2.2 Environmental Characteristics
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro]
        A.  What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?
        B.  But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?
        C.  What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?
        D.  What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?
        E.  What about renewable energy sources?  
               Why do we need fusion at all?  
 2.3 Safety Characteristics Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.4 Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.5 Fusion for Space Applications  
     (Under construction)

*** 3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
 3.1 Chronology of Events and Ideas
     (Under construction)
              When did fusion research begin?
              When was fusion research declassified?
       What is the current state of fusion research? 
                   Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
 3.2 Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     (Under construction)
       Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
              What level of international cooperation is there?
 3.3 History of Achievements and Funding
        (Under construction)
           What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
              What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

*** 4. Methods of Confinement / 
                Approaches to fusion:
 4.1 Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     (Under construction)
        A. What is a tokamak / how does it work?
        B. What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
        C.   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
        D. What is a Field-Reversed Configuration / how does it work?
        E.   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
        F. What is a Migma / how does it work?
 4.2 Alternative Confinement Methods / Approaches
     (Under construction)
        A. Gravitational Confinement    
        B. Inertial Confinement
        C. Mirror Confinemen
        D. Muon-catalyzed Fusion
        E. Electrostatic Confinement 
        F. What about the pinch methods?
        G. What are some other confinement approaches?

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section5-devices]
        A.  Flagship Tokamaks
                1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
                2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
                3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
                4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
                5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  
        B.  Medium to Large Tokamaks
                1.  Alcator C-Mod: 
                2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
                3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
                4.  FT: (Frascati Tokamak)
                5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)
                6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)
                7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 
                8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)
                9.  TEXTOR:  
                10. Tore Supra:  
        C.  Small Tokamaks
                1:  CDX-U (Current Drive eXperiment-Upgrade)
                2.  START:  (Small, Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)
                3.  TEXT-U: (Texas Experimental Tokamak-Upgrade?)
        D.  Stellarators
                1.  ATF  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
                2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 
                3.  Wendelstein-7X
        E.  Inertial Confinement
                1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)
                2.  Nova:
                3.  Omega:
                4.  NIKE:
        F.  Alternative Methods
                1.  Electrostatic Confinement:
                2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
                3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
                4.  Plasmak: 
                5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

*** 6. Recent Results
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section6-results]
        A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
                 (a) What was done?
                 (b) Why does it matter?
        B.  Recent Results from JET
        C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
        D.  Recent Results from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
        E.  Recent major results from other experiments, and theoretical work
        F.  Recent Political News
        G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section7-education]
        A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
        B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer."  
                What should I study?
        C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school students?  
                How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone else done this?
        D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?       
        E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Internet Resources:
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet]
        A. Newsgroups
        B. WAIS (Wide-Area-Information-Server)
        C. World-Wide Web
        D. Gopher
        E. Anonymous FTP Sites
        F. Listservers
        G. Electronic Bulletins
        H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future Plans:
  (Under construction)
        (a) Plans for TPX?
        (b) Plans for ITER?
        (c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
        (d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
                Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
        (e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Bibliography / Reading List
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section10-biblio]
        A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
        B. General References and Histories 
           (suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
        C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
        D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
         (focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering reactors)
        E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
                (applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
        F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
        G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
        H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
                references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
                contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 11. Acknowledgements and Citations
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/section11-acknowledgements]
(I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list everyone!)

*** Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Plasma Physics
     and Fusion Energy Research (FUT)
Part 0/26: Introduction to the Glossary / FUT 
     [Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro]

Parts 1/26, 2/26, ..., 26/26: 
    Glossary terms from A to Z (one file per letter)  
    [ Archive-names: fusion-faq/glossary/a
                     fusion-faq/glossary/b
                     ...
                     fusion-faq/glossary/z ]




cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 16:03:04 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section1-physics
Last-modified: 7-Aug-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Last Revised August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is a star, but 
Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (Jupiter is about 1/1000th 
the sun's mass, so if it were roughly 100 times bigger, it
too would generate fusion and be a small, dim star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  Gravity, no longer opposed by the internal
pressure of fusion-heated gases, crushes the core of the star, 
forming things like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes
(the bigger the star, the more extreme the result).  (For more 
details, try the sci.astro or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing
a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall.  The likelihood 
that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* 
area of the target facing the dart-thrower.  (Thanks to Rich
Schroeppel for this analogy.))

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  More information on each of the elements is given below.

Table I:  Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
      -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
                                           somewhat on temperature.)
      (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
      -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- via He5 decay
                                    
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is
especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it.
(A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively 
unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable.  
The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.)
The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I
want to go into here.

Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below.  
These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of 
their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors.


*** F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
(Note: there's more information in the glossary too.)

Hydrogen    (p):  Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially 
                    in water.
Deuterium   (D):  A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in
                    addition to the proton).  Occurs naturally at 
                    1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary 
                    hydrogen atoms in water, etc., there's one D.
Tritium     (T):  Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two 
                    neutrons and a proton.  T is unstable  
                    (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a
                    half-life of 12.3 years.  (Half the T decays
                    every 12.3 years.)  Because of its short 
                    half-life, tritium is almost never found in 
                    nature (natural T is mostly a consequence 
                    of cosmic-ray bombardment).  Supplies have been 
                    manufactured using fission reactors; world 
                    tritium reserves are estimated at a few 
                    kilograms, I believe.  Tritium can be made by 
                    exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
Helium-3  (He3):  Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a 
                    neutron.  Stable.  There's roughly 13 He-3 atoms 
                    per 10 million He-4 atoms.  He-3 is relatively 
                    abundant on the surface of the moon; this is 
                    believed to be due to particles streaming onto
                    the moon from the solar wind.  He3 can also be
                    made from decaying tritium.
Helium-4  (He4):  Common isotope of helium.  Trace component of the 
                    atmosphere (about 1 part per million?); also 
                    found as a component of "natural gas" in gas 
                    wells.
Lithium-6 (Li6):  Less common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 3 
                    neutrons.  There are 8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 
                    Li-7 atoms.  Widely distributed in minerals and 
                    seawater.  Very active chemically.
Lithium-7 (Li7):  Common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 4 neutrons.
                    See above info on abundance.
Boron      (B):   Common form is B-11 (80%).  B-10 20%.  
                    5 protons, 6 neutrons.  Also abundant on earth.

Note:  Separating isotopes of light elements by mass is not 
         particularly difficult.


*** G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.  This topic is discussed more in Section 2.


*** H.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun?

Fortunately for life on earth, the sun is an aneutronic fusion
reactor, and we are not continually bombarded by fusion neutrons.
Unfortunately, the aneutronic process which the sun uses is 
extremely slow and harder to do on earth than any of the reactions
mentioned above.  The sun long ago burned up the "easy" deuterium
fuel, and is now mostly ordinary hydrogen.  Now hydrogen has a
mass of one (it's a single proton) and helium has a mass of four
(two protons and two neutrons), so it's not hard to imagine sticking
four hydrogens together to make a helium.  There are two major
problems here:  the first is getting four hydrogens to collide 
simultaneously, and the second is converting two of the four protons
into neutrons.  

The sun evades the first problem, and solves the second, by using a 
catalyzed cycle:  rather than fuse 4 protons directly, it fuses a 
proton to an atom of carbon-12, creating nitrogen-13; the N-13 emits 
a neutrino and a positron (an antielectron, that is an electon with
positive instead of negative charge) and becomes carbon-13.  
(Effectively, the Carbon-12 converted the proton to a 
neutron + positron + neutrino, kept the neutron, and became C-13).  
The C-13 eventually fuses with another proton to become N-14.  
N-14 then fuses with a proton to become oxygen-15.  Oxygen-15 decays 
to N-15 (emitting another positron), and N-15 plus another proton 
yields carbon-12 plus a helium-4 nucleus, (aka an alpha particle).  
Thus 4 protons are tacked one by one onto heavier elements, two of 
the protons are converted to neutrons, and the result is production
of helium and two positrons.  (The positrons will undergo 
matter-antimatter annihilation with two electrons, and the result
of the whole process is formation of a helium, two neutrinos, and
a bunch of gamma rays.  The gamma rays get absorbed in the solar 
interior and heat it up, and eventually the energy from all this 
fusion gets emitted as sunlight from the surface of the sun.)

The whole process is known as the carbon cycle; it's catalyzed
because you start with carbon and still have carbon at the end.
The presence of the carbon merely makes it possible to convert
protons to helium.  The process is slow because it's difficult
to fuse protons with carbon and nitrogen, and the positron-emitting
nuclear decays are also slow processes, because they're moderated
by the weak nuclear force.


*** J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  (Although actually you can go *too* fast, and the atoms
then start to whiz by too quickly, and don't stick together long 
enough to fuse properly.  This limit is not usually achieved in 
practice.)  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.  More
importantly, the slower your plasma loses energy, the more likely
it is that it will be able to sustain its temperature from internal
fusion reactions, and "ignite."  The ratio of fusion energy
production to plasma energy loss is what really counts here.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson product, defined as (density)*(confinement time) is a 
key measure of plasma confinement, and determines what 
combinations of density and energy confinement will give you 
fusion at a given temperature.  It is important to note that 
what you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored 
in the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

There's a lot of subtlety here; for instance, you want to 
confine your fuel ions as well as their energy, so that they
stick around and fuse, but you *don't* want to confine the 
"ash" from the reactions, because the ash needs to get out 
of the reactor...  But you'd like to get the *energy*
out of the ash to keep your fuel hot so it will fuse better!
(And it gets even more complicated than that!)

Regardless, it's true that for a special value of the Lawson 
product, the fusion power produced in your plasma will just 
balance the energy losses as energy in the plasma becomes 
unconfined, and *ignition* occurs.  That is, as long as 
the plasma fuel stays around, the plasma will keep itself 
hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value for a temperature 
of about 200,000,000 Kelvin is roughly 5E20 seconds-particles/m^3.  
Current fusion reactors such as TFTR have achieved about 1/10th of
this - but 20 years ago they had only achieved 1/100,000th of this!

How can we improve the Lawson value of a plasma further, so we get 
even closer to fusion ignition?  The trick is to keep the heat in the 
plasma for as long as possible.  As an analogy to this problem, 
suppose we had a thermos of coffee which we want to keep hot.  We can 
keep the thermos hotter longer by (a) using a better type of 
insulation, so that the heat flows out more slowly, or (b) using 
thicker insulation, so the heat has farther to go to escape, and
therefore takes longer to get out.

Going back to the fusion reactor, the insulation can be improved by 
studying plasmas and improving their insulating properties by 
reducing heat transport through them.  And the other way to boost
the Lawson value is simply to make larger plasmas, so the energy
takes longer to flow out.  Scientists believe it's technically
feasible to build a power-producing fusion reactor with high
Lawson value *Right Now*, but it would have to be large, so large 
in fact that it would cost too much to be able to make electricity
economically.  So we're studying plasmas and trying to figure out
how to make them trap energy more efficiently.


*** M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E20 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 4 seconds.  (All these 
numbers in reality vary by factors of 2 or 3 from the rough values 
I've given.)  Currently, magnetic-confinement reactors are about 
a factor of ten short of the ignition value.  (TFTR has an
energy confinement time of 0.25 seconds during its best shots.)  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.




cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  rfheeter@pppl. /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: none

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-quarterly
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!!!).

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Internet Information Resources
# This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. #

Last Revised February 26,1995
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless otherwise cited.

What follows is a listing of many, but not all, of the fusion
energy/research information resources available via the internet.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (moderated)  
          - this latter is for plasma science discussions, 
            not for fusion issues.                

     Sci.physics.fusion postings have been archived on a couple 
     of internet sites.  For more information see the sections 
     on WAIS and Anonymous FTP below.


*** B. WAIS (Wide-Area Information Server) Databases

     [ Information on the sunsite.unc.edu WAIS database provided
          by Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com ]

     * sunsite.unc.edu has a searchable WAIS archive of all postings
       on sci.physics.fusion (1989-present).  According to Chuck 
       Harrison (harr@netcom.com), "WAIS access means it is 
       *searchable* on free-text keywords, which means alot when 
       you're trying to find old vaguely-recollected postings from 
       the 30MB or so of archive.  I created the thing because I 
       found that hunting through the vm1.nodak.edu [anonymous FTP 
       site, see below ] archives by ftp was prohibitively 
       time-consuming, so I suspect anyone who *wants* to look in 
       the newsgroup history (who knows why? ;-) ) should try 
       the WAIS database first if they have access (e.g. swais, 
       WWW, gopher, or telnet to sunsite)."

     * Accessing the sunsite archives - directions:
       [ The information below is straight from Chuck Harrison ]

       1. If you are directly connected to Internet, you can 
          log onto a public WAIS server at the University of North 
          Carolina:
          
          %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
          ...
          login: swais
          ...
          TERM = (unknown) vt100
          It takes a minute to load ...

          <use ? for online help>
          <use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
          <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your 
           keywords for searching>

       2. If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS 
          access.  Many university campuses provide gopher as a 
          public information service.

          2a. On most systems, you first select an option 
              labeled "Other Systems", then from that menu 
              select "WAIS based information".  Since each
              gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell 
              you exactly where to go from there.

          2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate 
              the menus down thru SunSITE archives..All 
              archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
              [ Sometimes conventional fusion comes second! ]

          2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet 
              to sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'. Then follow 
              2a or 2b above.

       3. If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as 
          Mosaic, Cello, or Lynx, you may use the following URL:
          wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest (newsgroup archive)

     [ More info on other Gopher and WWW resources is given below. ]

       4. If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common 
          ones are "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for 
          X-Windows), use it.


*** C. World-Wide Web:

     * Much of the public-domain fusion info is now available 
       via WWW:  At this time, it appears that most of the 
       major U.S. fusion research labs have information available 
       on the Web, and the amount of available information is 
       growing rapidly.  Available materials include basic 
       fusion information, all sorts of pictures, information 
       about each lab's research projects, and more.

     * Navigating the Web is a little hard to explain, but for fusion,
       the easiest way to start is to go to the Department of Energy's
       Office of Fusion Energy page.  (Address given below.)  From here, 
       you can (I think) move upwards within DOE to the Office of 
       Energy Research, or downwards to many of the fusion labs.  
       Alternatively, once you know the "URL" addresses of a lab's WWW 
       documents, you can open them up directly with the "Open URL" 
       menu command.

     * Address (temporary) for this FAQ:  http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter

     * Some of the Principal Fusion / Plasma URL addresses to try:
     
     http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/                  (Office of Fusion Energy)
     http://www-plasma.umd.edu                  (Plasma Science Home Page)
     http://www.pppl.gov/                         (Princeton Plasma Physics Lab)
     http://demo-www.gat.com/                         (General Atomics / DIII-D)
     http://www-phys.llnl.gov/X_Div/index.html  (Livermore's ICF Group) 
     http://www.jet.uk/                         (Joint European Torus)

     * Additional Web Sites that may be of Interest:
     http://cmfd.univ.trieste.it/cmfd.html      (Trieste, Italy, MHD Site)
     http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/                  (MIT Plasma Fusion Center) 
     http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html     (U. Texas Fusion Res. Center)
     http://www.ornl.gov/divisions/fusion_energy.html (ORNL Fusion Division)
     
     (Apologies to those labs I left off this list; I figured this 
     would give anyone interested a decent start, and then the rest 
     of the labs are easy to get to.)


*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics): 
          The host is uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)
          Or, from the top:  Gopher -> Europe -> Germany 
             -> Information Servers in Germany 
             -> MPI fuer Plasmaphysik Garching-Gopher
             (and, if you like, -> IPP Information)

          According to Art Carlson at Garching:
             "It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, 
             press releases and the like, is in German.  There is 
             other *great stuff* on the computer, like drawings 
             of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules, but it's not 
             publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * University of Texas - Austin:
          Gopher -> North America -> USA -> Texas
            -> University of Texas Austin Fusion Studies
                  (Machine name is hagar.ph.utexas.edu)

          This gopher server has a variety of material regarding 
          physics and fusion, including archives of the periodic 
          status reports for TFTR, Alcator C-Mod, and TEXT-U.
          This is also accessible via Mosaic with the URL 
          gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1, I believe.

     * There are also a large number of Gopher sites which have 
        partial or complete archives of the Fusion FAQ postings.
        A Veronica search on Fri, 2 Dec 1994, yielded a large list.
        I would recommend accessing MIT's gopher server and finding
        rtfm.mit.edu, then looking in /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq.
        If you aren't able to connect to rtfm, you can certainly find
        the fusion faq via your own Veronica search, too.


*** E. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     sunsite.unc.edu
          Sunsite also collects the fusion digests archiving
          the sci.physics.fusion, in the directory 
           /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion.
          The recent digest files are in subdirectories whose 
          names begin with "fd," and the older stuff is
          archived by year in files fd89, fd90, etc...
          This material is also available under WAIS (see 8A).

     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.

          In particular, this FAQ is (will soon be) archived here.

          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     rtfm.mit.edu
          This is the primary archive for the FAQ, at least in 
          the United States.  The latest version of a given
          section FAQ crossposted to sci.answers or news.answers 
          can be found somewhere in either
               /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq or
               /pub/usenet/sci.answers/fusion-faq
          (Sections with multiple parts have subdirectories.)

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.
     
     There are other FTP archive sites for the FAQ as well.
          A list of these is included in Section 0, Part 1 (Intro).


*** F. LISTSERV  ("FTP by email"):
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

   To obtain the FAQ, rtfm.mit.edu also works as a listserver:

   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 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 relevant lines from the following list:

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part3-revisions
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section1-physics
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section2-energy/part1-technical
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section5-devices
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section6-results
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section7-education
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section8-internet
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section10-biblio
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section11-acknowl
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/intro
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/a
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/b
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/c
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/d
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/e
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/f
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/g
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/h
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/i
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/j
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/k
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/l
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/m
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/n
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/o
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/p
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/q
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/r
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/s
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/t
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/u
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/v
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/w
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/x
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/y
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/glossary/z
quit

(Delete those lines which correspond to files you don't want.)

While there are many files, the full FAQ is not more than
a megabyte in size, so it is not excessively huge.
Please note that several files (section9, for instance)
are omitted from the above list; this is because they
are still being written and are not yet available.



*** G. Electronic Bulletins

     * TFTR Updates - published occasionally by Rich Hawryluk,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.plasma.
Also distributed via electronic mailing list.

     * Alcator C-Mod Weekly Updates - posted by MIT researchers to
sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.plasma periodically. 

     * TPX Updates - published occasionally by Rob Goldston,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.


*** H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov 
        - Graduate Student at Princeton - 

        I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
        information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
        a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
        TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
        about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
        - Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

        "I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
        lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
        as a source for photocopies of such things."


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 11:07 -0500 (EST)

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
 
-> I would like to propose an alternative.
-> Deuterons already embedded in the surface layers of the titanium, are
-> neatly arranged in rows and columns, by the crystal lattice.
-> Consequently, when a surface deuteron is struck by a high energy
-> deuteron from the beam, frequently a second deuteron is "lined up"
-> precisely behind it, and both of the initial deuterons now collide
-> with the third one. This means that in a lattice, this "chance" three
-> body collision, is far more likely, than it would be in a gas.
 
I was looking at this idea a few months ago as well.  My idea was that you have
them all lined up, and if you get a fusion, which then splits into a neutron
and a He3 atom, the fragments would be focused to follow the crystal planes.
That would mean that they would be aimed directly at the other deturium atoms,
which then get hit, and hit the next atoms, and fuse, and so forth.  The reason
I threw out this hypothesis was that the He3 and neutrons and gammas such a
hypothesis would necessarily require have not been observed for the most part.
 
But a beam from the outside, with the corresponding ash, would fit quite
nicely with this idea.  I think you may be on to something here.  Thanks for
posting it.
 
                                                         Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:48 -0500 (EST)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
->      May be. And may be not. History books may one day say: "In the end
-> of the XX century, among other signs of the decay of rationalism and a
-> revival of irrational and/or religious beliefs, a small sect pretended
-> that energy could be obtained from matter in very simply and semi-magical
-> small and simple devices".
 
You are covering a lot of ground there.  It seems that candles, kerosene
lanterns, gasoline stoves, batteries and a host of other very common items
fall into that catagory.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:42:34 -0500
Organization: Software Engineering Research Lab

In article <199508301356.JAA46619@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu wrote:

 > Kasagi et al. bombarded a titanium deuteride target with 150 keV deuterons
 > and observed the charged particle spectrum emitted.  The claim is that
 > there are "anomolous protons" at 17 MeV included in that spectrum.
 >
 > Before we read too much into this result I think a simple discussion of
 > the likely experimental problems is in order.  First we need to ask the
 > basic question, "How clean is the experiment?"  In other words what is
 > there in the target other than titanium and deuterium, and what is in the
 > beam other than 150 keV deuterons?


The other question to ask is: is(are) the detector(s) they used
susceptible to pileup?  If so, one can get roughly 17 MeV by, for
example, combining the proton from d+d fusion with the neutron from t
+ d fusion (other pileups are also possible.)  If the tritium
recoiling from one d+d fusion itself reacts before stopping in the
target, the two particles would be produced nearly simultaneously, and
this artifact could occur even at low beam current.

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:01:56 -0900
Organization: none

In article <420e3s$p23@viewlog.viewlogic.com>, Mike Crow
<mcrow@viewlogic.com> wrote:

> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> >

[snip]

> > The electrolysis is a surface effect, needed only to load the lattice. The
> > tunneling effect would be a volume effect, which would be enhanced by
> > stirring things up *inside* the lattice with a current.  This suggests
> > setting up a current *through* the lattice (in addition to the
> > electrolysis current) might be fruitful.  Achieving this might best be
> > accomplished by putting an oscillator inside the cell so DC current would
> > still be the source of energy to the cell, but large current oscillations
> > could be set up through the lattice (wire, film, beads, etc.)
> > 
> 
>  How about a ring shaped lattice with inductors around it to induce a current 
> through it. Use DC to load the ring with protons(?). If there are free
protons 
> in the lattice they should flow through the ring, pushed by the magnetic
field 
> from the inductors. As this "current" and loading increases there could be a 
> chance that 2 protons would try to jump into the same inter-lattice site
and fuse.

Yes. I have condsidered trying such a tinker myself! I thought it might be
possible to build a kind of solid state tokamak - the idea being to
compress the H nuclei into the center of the (toroidal) lattice. Also, the
possibility of building the torus as a set of alternating metallic layers
(cutting transversely across the torus, chopping the doughnut into lots of
wedges) to try to impose diffusion barriers to the H nuclei migration, and
thus momentarily increasing H density at the barrier. However, unless you
got astounding results, it would be difficult to impossible to do
calorimity. A/C power measurements complicate calorimity, but alternating
magnetic fields would make things a lot tougher. I suppose you could put
the whole mess into calorimitry cell! So much for my flights of fancy.

I thought for the purposes at hand a small oscillator circuit inside the
calorimitry cell might be easily accomplished. If heat input from
electrolysis can be eliminated the experimntal signal/noise ratio might be
improved. If the oscillator is used as a stimulator, i.e. it's purpose is
to initiate favorable conditions, the reduced time averaged energy input
also helps that ratio.

[snip]


> > Well, there it is, more grist for the mill.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Horace
> > 
> > -- 
> > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> > 
> 
> 
>   Mike Crow
>   mcrow@viewlogic.com

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes article
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tornadoes article
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:13:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / 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: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:39:22 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <41snh8$de1@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain
<pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>  The fact that I want to kick the "hot fusion" hogs away from the
> >public trough does not mean I want to take their place, and I have said as
> >much many times in the past. My position is that government should limit
> >itself to the protection of property rights. "Transfer payments,"
> >"subsidies," "economic regulations," and all the other euphemisms for
> >legalized theft should be ended. Period. In short, I advocate a social
> >system in which nobody, including myself, can indulge in a parasitic
> >lifestyle. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> >
>      Sorry to break the thread on CF, but this last statement deserves
in my opinion
> a separate discussion. Of course we do not have the same perception of public
> financing of research (which by the way is more common in Europe than in
the US),
> but I find yours inconsistent. If I understand well , government should
limit its
> intervention in the field of research to protection of property rights.
Therefore,
> research should be in the hands of the large corporations... which have the
> strongest interest to see that a simple device like CF generators
(assuming they
> work) never see the {light of?} day ?
> 
> Thanks for listening
> 
> M. Pain

Many large corporations--e.g., the electrical utilities--have a capital
investment which CF would put in jeopardy, were it to come online
quickly--especially if small home power generation units were mass
marketed. In that case, millions of homes would disconnect from the power
grids, and the capital base of the utilities, including even the nuclear
power plants, would eventually be sold for scrap prices at bankruptcy
auctions. The affected companies, clearly, would struggle with every means
at their disposal to prevent that from happening. But, of course, in a
society where property rights were truly protected, it is unclear what
those means might be or how they might succeed. As a practical matter,
there really isn't much the vested interests could do to stop CF, given
that they were precluded from violating the property rights of those who
wanted it. 

On the other hand, most large corporations would *not* have a large
capital base in jeopardy, and, because they would stand to benefit greatly
from plummeting electric power costs, they would tend to be supportive of
the new technology. In addition, those which inserted themselves into the
development of CF devices early-on would stand to make billions in
profits. Thus, overall, large corporations would tend to be supportive,
rather than opposed to, CF development, in a truly property rights
oriented society. 

Moreover, such considerations would also apply to small firms. It is hard
to imagine how a proliferation of small engineering research companies
(like Hydrodynamics, CETI, etc.) could be prevented from introducing such
technology even if, for some reason, the larger companies were against it.
If vested interests are constrained from violating anyone's property
rights, it is hard to see how they could effectively block, or even delay,
the introduction of new technology. 

Of course, there is no society in the present-day world where government
limits itself to the protection of property rights, so such speculations
are moot. In the world that exists, there are various foul means by which
established interests can, and do, act to prevent or delay the
introduction of technology which they do not like. We are seeing all of
them at play now, relative to CF, and will continue to see them for the
forseeable future. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: How is fusion doing?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How is fusion doing?
Date: 30 Aug 1995 03:22:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <41vrp0$d5i@rolaids.frco.com> Jim Adam, jadam@tcmail.frco.com
writes:
>How is fusion doing these days, in layman terms?  Is 
>there a FAQ I could read that covers the high
>points?  

Yes.  Try http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter; if you don't have Web access
email me.

The FAQ is a little out of date (I haven't had time to update it
recently),
but should be useful.  To answer your more specific questions:

>(a)  Have you
>been able to get atoms to fuse (in a controlled
>environment, natch)?  For how long has this fusion 
>lasted, if so? 

Fusion power production in tokamaks has reached 10.7 MW for a duration
of roughly 1 sec, using input power of roughly 40 MW.

>(b)  What are the hurdles you're
>trying to overcome?  Do you need more powerful
>containment fields, or is it the means of inducing
>heat & pressure that are lacking?  Or are you
>trying to find ways to increase the ratio of energy 
>out to energy in? 

The magnetic containment fields are fine (but more powerful ones
wouldn't hurt, if they didn't cost more), and we have no problem
inducing heat and pressure by heating the plasma.  However,
there's a maximum pressure that can be confined by a given field,
and we need to find ways to make the plasma more stable so that
that maximum pressure can increase.  Fusion power output goes
like the pressure squared, while the heating power only scales
like pressure itself, so increasing pressure also increases
the ratio of power out to power in.  The last major hurdle is to
improve the energy confinement (insulation quality) of the plasma,
so that the input heat doesn't leak out so fast; this will allow
us to heat the plasma to ignition in a smaller, more economical 
device.  

Inertial confinement fusion has also been making progress, but
I'm not as well versed in that field.

> (c)  What happened to plans for "larger" fusion facilities? 

They are still out there, but money is expected to be tight next
year due to budget cuts.  There is a good chance that funding
will be eliminated for the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), 
which is a $700 million multiyear project to replace the U.S.'s 
largest fusion reactor (TFTR) with a more advanced, superconducting, 
steady-state device.  (More info on both of these is in the FAQ.)

> (d)  What are the
>main roadblocks right now?  Are they
>theoretical, or are they mainly mechanical /
>technological?

It's a mix of both.  I posted an article on "Hot Fusion:  Challenges
and Approaches" a few weeks ago; if you can't find it on the net,
let me know and I'll email it to you.  Something like it will be 
in the FAQ the next time I revise it.

--Bob Heeter

Robert F. Heeter
Fusion FAQ Maintainer
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion FAQ Correction: Solar Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion FAQ Correction: Solar Fusion
Date: 30 Aug 1995 03:26:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <41vtg4$gg5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Sci-Lib-Cowell-Room-Staff,
cowell@scilibx.ucsc.edu writes:
>I read in the FAQ that the sun avoids the problems of proton-proton
>hydrogen burning by engaging in the CNO cycle, but as far as I can 
>tell the CNO cycle in main sequence stars does not dominate energy 
>generation until core temperatures are approx. 2*10^7 K. The sun is
>using the p-p 1,2, and 3 cycles [p+p->d+e^+ +neutrino, d+d->He(4);
>He(3)+He(3)->He(4)+2p; He(3)+He(4)->Be(7), Be(7)+e- ->Li(7)+neutrino,
>Li(7)+p->B(8)->Be(8)+e^+ +neutrino, Be(8)->2He(4) ], which dominate
>the energy generation by a factor of 10 or more in stars as cool as
>1.5 *10^7K or cooler, like the sun (_Principles of Stellar Evolution 
>and Nucleosynthesis_, D. Clayton).
>
>If this reference is out of date, I would like to know, but otherwise
>this minor correction should be put in the FAQ.  

You're right; the FAQ has an error in it.  I'm just waiting for
a good time to patch it up; I have a lot of other revisions to
make, but time has been scarce.  Thanks for pointing this out!

--Bob Heeter

P.S.  You might have spared everyone else the question by 
asking me first via email.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Conventional Fusion FAQ Maintainer
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:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:57:31 -0900
Organization: none

In article <41vuq1$6hq@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) wrote:

> Horace Heffner (hheffner@matsu.ak.net) wrote:
> 
> : Hopefully you read all the way to what I wrote at the bottom of my post (a
> : lot to ask - I apologize for the long post!) What I suggest there is the
> : possibility that, looked at from another perspective, Dudley's Hypothesis
> : of sheilded porpoising electrons implies that conventional quantum
                           ^^^^^^^^^ (protons, my error)
> : effects, non nuclear effects, might be responsible for excess energy.  The
> : proposed effects do not directly involve the palladium nucleus, but
> : hydrogen nuclei that approch each other from opposite sides of an electron
> : shell - Dudley's porpoising electrons.  The distance between the nuclei
                                ^^^^^^^^^ (protons, again)
> : required to obtain the suggested effect is only that distance sufficient
> : to create an energy barrier to shielding electrons, not strong force
> : distances.
> 
> By normal statistical mechanical principles how is this going to generate
> any "heat beyond chemistry?"

My supposition is that two basic scenarios occur after the approach of the
two H nuclei to the shell and to each other, thereby creating an electron
density "shadow" between them and an energy barrier:

(1)  electron tunneling does not occur, or
(2)  electron tunneling does occur

In case (1) the kinetic energy gained by the H nucei while approaching the
accumulating charge of the shadow will be offset by the cost of departing
it.

In case (2) the H nucei keep their kinetic energy and suddenly gain the
potential energy acquired by approaching the shadow, an energy that does
not have to be paid back.  This energy could easily be well outside normal
thermal energies, even in the kV range.

Now one can argue that electon(s) can tunnel back into the well.  However,
in my  limited understanding of the tunneling effect, I believe tunneling
is a discrete event. The electron is either on one side or the other of
the barrier. If this is true, we could expect a period of time to elapse
before reverse tunneling would occur. In this period of time the
phenominal accumulated potential energy can be at least partially
converted into kinetic energy, i.e. excess heet.


> 
> It seems this could cause only moderate *reversible* changes.  I'd guess
> that this would be covered by the known-to-be-very-complex thermodynamics
> of hydrogenated metal systems that has been empirically studied for a while.
> 


I don't know about thermodynamic issues here yet.  The main problem on my
part is probably a lack of understanding of quantum theory.

Some of the issues bothering me are: 

In the assumed conditions does (can) a barrier really exist? 

If so, how does the probability of tunneling change as the potential
energy involved (proximity) increases? Does it diminish to the
inconsequential?

If tunneling *inward* can occur, i.e. an extra electron can be trapped
between the two H nuclei, doesn't this lead to the possibility of actual
fusion by overcoming the EMF barrier of the nuclei?

Any help with this or informative comments would be appreciated.

Thanks.


PS. A good computer model for visualization purposes would be really
useful for understanding hydrogenated metal systems, or even quantum
mechanics in general.  Anybody know of such a thing?

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 /   /  LiD crystal fracturing and D-D fusion
     
Originally-From: <hench>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LiD crystal fracturing and D-D fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 15:53:55 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic

I was doing some net surfing on the theme "Cold Fusion", and
I found a reference on John Walker's home page at URL:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html

Let me quote part of this page:

     "Experiments have detected neutron emission consistent
     with d-d fusion when a crystal of lithium deuteride is
     fractured [1]. This is believed to be the consequence
     of deuterons being accelerated by KEv electric fields
     generated by a propagating crack in the crystal."

     [1] Klyuev, V. A., et al., Sov. tech. Phys. Lett. 12,
         551 (1986).

Since this file is dated on May 19, 1989, I was wondering if
there were any developments in this area. Has this experiment
been repeated? If it has, what is the proposed mechanism for
this effect?

***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** Institute of Information Theory and Automation (UTIA) **
***********************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 /   /  LiD crystal fracturing and D-D Fusion
     
Originally-From: <hench>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LiD crystal fracturing and D-D Fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 16:02:30 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic

I was browsing the web, and I found this reference to an
interesting phenomenon on a web page of John Walker at URL:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html

Let me quote a section:

     "Experiments have detected neutron emission consistent
     with d-d fusion when a crystal of lithium deuteride is
     fractured [1]. This is believed to be the consequence
     of deuterons being accelerated by KEv electric fields
     generated by a propagating crack in the crystal."

     [1] Klyuev, V. A., et al., Sov. tech. Phys. Lett. 12,
         551 (1986).

Since this page is dated on May 19, 1989, I was wondering
if there has been any developments in this area. Has this
experiment been successfully repeated?  If so, is there a
proposed mechanism, or even better, a mathematical model
for this effect?

--
***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** Institute of Information Theory and Automation (UTIA) **
***********************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 08:19:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Austern <matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
 
>Not at all consistent or pervasive!  The vast majority of people who
>run electrochemical cells see no excess heat at all; it's only a small
>minority of people who do.
 
That's absurd. You just made that up out of the clear blue, didn't you?
I can just imagine what it would be like going to ICCF5 according to your
version of events. There would 200 people and 4 days of lectures, and
every one of them would stand up in front of the crowd and say "We have been
doing this for 6 years, but we have no results so far."
 
You have never read any of the published papers on CF, have you? Amazing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 17:19:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
     "I think there is an interest in separating "scientific" work and
     "technical" work. . . . The word "science" still has a meaning: it is an
     activity that produces (I know I am being very schematic, so please do
     not quibble) knowledge following certain very precise rules (see K.
     Popper for instance)."
 
I regard that as an artificial distinction. (See C. P. Snow for instance).
When scientists, inventors and corporate R&D researchers come to the labs
every day, they do the same kind of work. A man from Mars peeking over their
shoulders could not tell which was which. It is like the difference between
a sanitation engineer and a garbage collector.
 
If we start slicing technology away from science, what else should go? How
many more distinctions do we make? Do we say that botanists and medical
researchers are not scientists? If you design a silicon chip masking machine
does that make you a scientist, but if you design the chip you are not a
scientist?
 
 
     "I do not think that there is nothing derogatory in being a technical
     man (as I am myself) rather than a scientist."
 
I did not think you meant to be derogatory. I think you are making a
distinction without a difference.
 
 
     "Technological research is another field, where there are no rules
     provided you make things work."
 
I do not think the rules of science are as hard and fast as Popper claims.
 
 
 
     "Concerning Edison, I know that the view held in the US is quite
     different (and rather mythical, if I can make a provocative comment)
     from the one held in Europe. But however brilliant he was as an inventor
     and an engineer, it is not commonly thought that he is a scientist."
 
I think you are right, but I also think the Europeans misunderstand the nature
of genius as it manifests itself in North America. This was particularly true
in the 19th century. European intellectuals did not fully grasp the fact that
the U.S. was building a nation from scratch. That takes as much creativity as
the more refined, settled intellectual pursuits of Europe. European scientists
and commentators did not realize what it was like to live in a vast unsettled
continent where the population doubled every 20 or 30 years and cities,
universities, and industries were created overnight.
 
Edison and other 19th century inventors were widely misunderstood for another
reason. In that era, in the U.S. it was not fashionable to put on intellectual
airs. You did not talk like a scientist. Edison was a master at public
relations, and he took care to present an image of himself as a man of the
people. A mere tinkerer, like any other Yankee inventor. He had a rough hewn
manner and he dressed like a Bowery bum, in an era when a European scientist
about to embark on a test flight of an experimental airplane wore white
gloves, a dinner jacket, and a top hat. (I have a wonderful photograph of
that.) The Europeans who met him got the wrong impression. An
anti-intellectual streak in American culture sometimes prompts modern
politicians to pretend they are not lawyers educated at Yale & Harvard. This
popular mythology is particularly absurd when it is applied to the Wrights. To
this day, many people think they were tinkerers who stumbled onto the secret
of flight. As themselves frequently said, they did not do empirical science.
They disdained it. They did physics based on first principles. They had "a low
tolerance for guesswork" (T. Crouch). They filled notebooks with physics
equations and data from the wind tunnel, which they invented. It is ironic
that their chief rival was the academic scientist Langley, head of the
Smithsonian Institution. His methods were inept, his physics were wrong. He
tried to solve the problem using empirical methods, but he never got close.
His version of the wind tunnel was a whirling arm that held scale model
airplanes. He spent thousands of dollars and many years on this hopelessly
clumsy machine. The Wrights built their wind tunnel in two weeks for a few
dollars, using a balance scale made of "hacksaw blades and bicycle spokes." It
looked like a toy, but it was such a superb design and the data was so good
that nobody got more accurate airfoil lift and drag numbers until the 1920s.
 
The difference between the Wrights and Langley shows the weakness of your
argument. If you judge by external appearances and job titles, you would think
that two bicycle mechanics in Dayton would use the empirical engineering
approach, whereas an astronomer in charge of the most prestigious U.S.
scientific institution would use a rigorous scientific approach like Popper
recommends. In reality, it was just the opposite. (Rigorous science was the
norm when these events took place, two years before Einstein published his
paper on special relativity.) I contend that the same situation still arises
today. Many engineering & inventor type people are more rigorous and more
scientific than the average academic scientist. I have seen many examples of
that in CF. That is why I think the distinction is artificial.
 
 
I mentioned that the T/n ratio in CF is sometimes as high as 10^7. That number
is from Ikegami, in the Jap. Journal of Applied Physics. Mario asks:
 
     ". . .I am ready to accept that it is not hot fusion. But then, why do
     you say that there is a fusion phenomenon at all ?
 
That is a strange question. It produces helium, tritium and neutrons, so it
has to be a nuclear process. Right? What else could it be? It transmutes
elements, therefore it is fusion.
 
Perhaps it is a combination of a nuclear process with something even more
energetic. This is mere speculation, but perhaps some source of energy much
more powerful than fusion is at work, like this ZPE business (whatever that
is). This mystery energy source might occasionally cause fusion. This is a
grisly analogy, but a fusion bomb explosion will trigger chemical fires on the
ground which add a little to the overall energy release. Perhaps that explains
why the tritium, helium and neutrons from CF do not appear to be commensurate
with the heat. They are unimportant, minor byproducts of a minor reaction, like
the smoke from a fire set by a nuclear bomb. Who knows? And, honestly, who
cares? It is not my department. I predict that as experiments improve, we will
eventually trap fully commensurate helium-4 in every case. Mel Miles has done
the most convincing helium work, and that is what he finds. He has been
getting better results for the last few years, which he has not published yet.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 15:50:38 -0900
Organization: none

In article <41tv49$etp@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

> In article <41midb$biv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote :
> 

[snip]


> >I would kind of be curious about the spectrum up to 1 MeV of incident
> >deuteron energy, because at that level enough energy is available to emit
> >a neutrino and finalize the electron capture. Of course that reaction is
> >mediated by the weak interaction and would happen rarely it still might be
> >relevant for the fusion to occur.
> >
> >
> >Zoltan Szakaly
> >
> I would like to propose an alternative.
> Deuterons already embedded in the surface layers of the titanium, are
> neatly arranged in rows and columns, by the crystal lattice.
> Consequently, when a surface deuteron is struck by a high energy
> deuteron from the beam, frequently a second deuteron is "lined up"
> precisely behind it, and both of the initial deuterons now collide
> with the third one. This means that in a lattice, this "chance" three
> body collision, is far more likely, than it would be in a gas.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

Another alternative might be that pairs of  porpoising deuterons
(speculated in the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisted thread) might
momentarily, but frequently, form a weekly linked triplet with a shielding
electron.  The system of two deuterons separated by an electron would be
held together magnetically via aligned proton and electron spin.  A
collision along the axis of such a triplet would actually tend to create a
four body collision: D + D + e + D.
A test of this speculation might be to place the target in a magnetic
field axially aligned with the deuteron beam.  If an increase in reaction
rate occurs, the speculation is confirmed sufficiently to consider further
examination.

Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / 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: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:49:37 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-2608951220090001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2608950221030001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <browe-2208952107200001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
> >Rowe) wrote:
> >
> >> I won't respond to your response point by point to conserve bandwidth.
> >> 
> >> My comment about your "assuming the worst" is your assumptions about
> >> motivations. I don't disagree with your observations of fact. Your choice
> >> of words imply malevolent intent. I strongly suspect that most researchers
> >> are not conspiring to "loot the taxpayers". 
> >
> >***{They obviously do not think of what they are doing in that way, but
> >that is unimportant. The issue here is not whether the "hot fusion"
> >parasites are in denial; the issue is whether, in fact, they have embraced
> >a parasitic lifestyle. It is well known that misbehavior is generally
> >perpetrated by persons who are in denial. The examples are legion. Most
> >men who beat their wives do not think of themselves as the cowardly,
> >immoral creatures which, in fact, they are. Instead, they excuse their
> >behavior by blaming their wives. Similarly, most burglars do not think of
> >themselves as character deficient social parasites: they excuse their
> >behavior by blaming "society," or their "environment," or the flaws of
> >mankind in general. If we ask ourselves why misbehavior tends so strongly
> >to be accompanied by denial, the answer is obvious: looking honestly at
> >the facts and their implications activates the faculty known as
> >"conscience," and tends to bring about an alteration of the behavior. Seen
> >in this light, denial is simply one of the preconditions that make
> >misbehavior possible. Because of that, we should never be surprised to see
> >misbehavior and denial coexisting in one person. Bottom line: I feel quite
> >sure that the vast majority of "hot fusion" researchers deny that there is
> >anything wrong with what they are doing. They are, in fact, looters who
> >are riding on the backs of the people; but I do not, and did not, claim
> >that they see themselves in that light. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> I understand your point that often pwople who behave badly don't believe
> they are behaving badly. Consequently, the criteria for determining bad
> behavior can't be set by those exhibiting the behavior. 
> 
> As for the examples you cited, I think there is a common thread. The
> behaviors described are illegal in some form. This gives an objective
> standard for judging those behaviors. However, fusion researchers are not
> engaging in illegal behaviour. Whether or not you believe current fusion
> research is valid, it is patently unfair to characterize these researchers
> in the same light as buglars, wife beaters etc who blame there behavior on
> either the "environment" or "society."

***{The common thread that you cited, illegality, is not what I had in
mind. It may well be, for example, that what Hitler did was legal. He was
duly appointed Chancellor of Germany by Hindenberg in accordance with
powers which Hindenberg had, as the elected President. There are those who
believe that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed, in the
subsequent events, and that, as a consequence, even the Holocaust was
legal. I, however, don't give a hoot in Hell about the legality of such
matters. Legal or not, Hitler was a criminal and a mass murderer, and
deserved the worst penalty that could have been inflicted, had he been
foolish enough to fall into Allied hands at the end of the war. The point
here, Bill, is that right and wrong bear no consistent relationship with
legality. Anything which gets written into law in accordance with the
accepted procedures of a society is "legal," even if in objective terms it
constitutes a crime against humanity. What I had in mind was something
quite different: criminality, defined in universal terms that have nothing
to do with the peculiarities of a particular age or social system. In my
view, when individuals become involved in a dispute over property which
they cannot work out by mutual agreement, they are obligated to take that
dispute before a neutral arbiter, state their cases, and abide by the
decision. Those who refuse to do this--i.e., those who attempt the
unilateral settlement of disputes over property--I consider to be
criminals. A burglar, for example, wants the property of the person whose
home he burglarizes, but he knows he has no evidence on which he could
base a claim to that property and, hence, he knows that a neutral arbiter
would never hand it over to him. Result: he acts unilaterally, by stealth,
to seize the property he wants. That is what makes him a criminal. Similar
considerations apply to all other criminal acts, including murder. (A
person's body is his property.) By this concept, every existing government
on this planet is a criminal organization, because none of them are
willing to argue their claims to property before neutral arbiters.
Instead, in those rare cases where they are willing to face arbitration at
all, it is in their own bogus courts, where the sole question at issue is
whether they have abided by their own arbitrary rules ("the law") in
seizing the property of others. Since they refuse to settle disputes to
which they are a party in neutral courts--i.e., courts where decisions are
based on reason--they are criminal organizations, and the property which
they seize is not theirs. Result: when they redistribute it--e.g., to "hot
fusion researchers"--the recipients are looters at best, and it is most
assuredly *not* unfair to characterize them in the same light as burglars
and wife beaters. Anyway, that's enough on this topic. I have written a
sizable hardback book (*The Dogs of Capitalism*) dealing with this and
related matters, and it would take us rapidly away from physics to repeat
that material here. If you want to pursue this further, let's do it via
e-mail. --Mitchell Jones}***         
> 
> 
> [ skipped ]
> 
> >> Finally, I am curious. When your refer to me as being one of "you guys",
> >> what assumptions are you making about me? As far as I know I have not
> >> provided anyone here my professional affiliation. Nor I have I included in
> >> my .profile file. Are you assuming, based on my post, I have an
> >> affiliation with say Princeton or other lab involved in conventional
> >> fusion research?
> >
> >***{"You guys," as noted above, simply refers to those who have argued
> >against the validity of the Griggs result and who, subsequent to getting
> >their butts publicly kicked, continue to maintain the same position as
> >before. Because you guys refuse to budge, I now harbor dark suspicions
> >about your moral characters and your motivations. Result: I have put forth
> >several possible explanations for your behavior, one of which was the
> >looters-in-denial theory mentioned above. Another theory which I have
> >mentioned, which is probably more likely, is simply that most people tend
> >to be paralyzed with terror at the thought of being laughed at by their
> >peers, and tend to struggle with might and main, far beyond the point of
> >absurdity, to avoid adopting positions that will lead to that result. By
> >that theory, you guys want to fit in, and that desire constitutes a
> >conflict of interest which is preventing you from seeing the truth. While
> >this may seem more innocuous than the looters-in-denial theory, I urge you
> >to be very careful: nothing is more important than the truth, and to put
> >anything above it is to succumb to evil. (Never forget that the desire to
> >fit in led "good Germans" to look the other way and, as a result, made the
> >Holocaust possible.) Those who refuse to adjust their positions when they
> >lose an argument are on a very slippery slope indeed, and would be well
> >advised to look very closely at what they are doing. --Mitchell Jones}***
> >  
> 
> Yes, it is fair to include me in the group who isn't convinced the Griggs
> device is an over unity device. I agree that I personally do not have an
> adequate explaination of the Griggs results. 

***{By making that statement, Bill, you are showing more flexibility than
you were showing previously. Be careful: I may decide you are not a total
blockhead after all! :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

However, I see my inability
> to find such an explaination as evidence of my limitations not as evidence
> the Griggs device is an over unity device.

***{Perhaps you have not been reading the comments I have made in other
threads. Therefore, to repeat: no "cold fusion" advocate, to my knowledge,
claims that these devices are truly "over unity." The implication is not
that the conservation laws are wrong, but that some new energy source, not
recognized by conventional theory, is influencing the outcome. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> As I see it, many of the issues that have been raised here concerning the
> accuracy of the data taken as well as the interpretation of that data have
> not been adequately addressed. If these issues were addressed and there
> were more rigor in the data taking I suspect I and other skeptics would
> become convinced. Simply put claims of over unity require much more for my
> belief than what has been put forth for the Griggs device.

***{As I have said repeatedly, I also would like to see more work in this
area. However, based on detailed analysis of the nature of Griggs'
results, it seems clear that, at present, the strongest arguments support
the validity of those results. Do you disagree with this assessment?
Frankly, I suspect that you do not. (I feel sure that if you could poke a
hole in those results, you would do so!) The question, therefore, is this:
should we now say, individually, "I believe the Griggs device is drawing
power from some hitherto unrecognized source," or not? For myself, the
answer is easy: to me, the statement "I believe X" is equivalent to the
statement "The strongest arguments with which I am familiar support the
validity of X." That's what "belief" means to me, Bill! If it means
something else to you, please spell it out to me. I find myself very
curious as to what possible objective criterion you could have, if this
one is ruled out. In other words, how do you tell when you believe
something, and when you do not? --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> As for my motivation --- Well I have no scientific standing so I have no
> reason to fear ridicule. I work for an aerospace company who would have no
> interest in the Griggs device nor any interest in my position regarding
> the Griggs device. Is it really that hard for you to accept there are
> people who find the data less than convincing on just the merits of the
> data? Not everyone operates from the position you describe above.

***{I don't want to put too fine a point on this, Bill. I respect your
intelligence and your persistence in making your case, and I find it
entirely possible that you are a basically reasonable person. As for the
possibility that non-rational considerations bulk large in your thinking,
well, I'm open to that possibility also. Remember, I cited two possible
non-rational explanations for the stubbornness that I have observed in so
many of you guys. One involved hot fusion researchers fighting to maintain
funding, and the other involved a more generalized desire to fit in with
other physicists by not appearing to embrace "crackpot" ideas. Even if the
first theory doesn't apply to you, the second very well might. In any
case, I suspect that you will get to the truth eventually, even if you
drag your heels a bit more than I think you should. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Finally, the reason I follow this group is in the hope that I will learn
> that I am wrong about CF, the Griggs device, etc. I would very much like to
> see CF proved sucessful. But this won't happen with wishful thinking or by
> ignoring critics.

***{Agreed. --Mitchell Jones}***
> -- 
> MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Date of press conference on CF
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Date of press conference on CF
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:00:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DDvCB8.Luz@UQuebec.CA>, schiette@inrs-ener.uquebec.ca wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Can someone tell me the date of the first press conference
> where Pons & Fleishmann announced that they had "discovered" CF.
> 
>                         Tanks in advance,
> 
>                                   Francois Schiettekatte
>                                   schiette@inrs-ener.uquebec.ca

The date was March 23, 1989. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 31 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
