1995.08.31 / 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: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:04:48 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <tomkDE1xGG.A9J@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2808951423100001@austin-2-14.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
> >***{Another socialist pipe dream! Don't you guys ever look at the facts?
> >The problem in the "third world" is socialism, not lack of free solar
> >stoves supplied gratis by the advanced (i.e., capitalist) countries.
> 
> Hate to explain this to you, but NO ONE is suggesting that we _give_ anything
> to anyone. Does the word "cheap" used in my message bear no meaning to you?

***{To refresh your memory, here is what you said: "The idea is that 80%
of the fuel could be saved with solar technology if it can be reduced to
3rd world pricing (meaning essentially free -- remember that it would
pay the rest of the world to finance conversions to save the world's
weather!)" In this quote, you said quite explicitly that "the rest of the
world" ought to finance your little pipe dream. And now, when your bet has
been called, you deny it! Wow! --Mitchell Jones}*** 

> Exactly what matter does it make what a countries government is if the people
> who are so-called "governed" have never seen a government employee?
> 
> Haven't you ever been out of your own back yard?

***{If you actually believe that the countries in question--i.e., those in
and around the Sahel--are unaffected by government because many of the
people there have never seen a government employee, then it is obvious
that *you,* not I, have never been out of your own back yard. As I have
noted in other posts, the only legitimate function of government is to
protect property rights. In the Sahel and in the lands adjacent to it, the
major problem is nomadism and the overgrazing that it produces, which
destroys overlying vegetation and permits the topsoil to blow away. If the
governments which claimed sovereignty in these regions were to register
and protect private claims to this land, it would soon be fenced off, and
vast ranches would develop. In these operations, rotation of stock would
be practiced, and the nomadic overgrazing would be prevented. (When
nomads--e.g., Bedouin tribesmen--attempted to move onto such privately
held land, they would be stopped by force if necessary.) The result would
be a reversal in the growth of the Sahara: a greenbelt would appear at its
edges, and would contract toward its center, resulting eventually in the
elimination of most of the desert. If you doubt this, I suggest that you
study some of the aerial photos of the region, noting in particular the
presence of a number of rather odd, geometric intrusions into the desert.
These straight sided, green intrusions into the desert are the boundaries
of the occasional areas where private ranches or other operations (e.g.,
game parks) have actually been permitted to put up fences and prohibit
nomadic intrusion. They make it crystal clear that the expansion of the
Sahara is a creation of government, and is due not so much to what the
governments in the region are doing as to what they are failing to do:
protect private property rights. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> >You
> >are right in thinking that desertification is caused by the cutting and
> >burning of forests for fuel; but what you do not see is that if the land
> >in those countries had private owners, they would have an incentive to
> >practice sound land management, and would act to prevent the destruction
> >of their land.
> 
> Do you mean like in the Amazon rain forest where settlers are given land
> if they will clear and farm it? Hmm, they still seem to be clear cutting,
> over-using the land for a couple of years and then moving on to more
> free land.

***{Baloney. Privately owned land is not "free." When land is privately
owned, those who mismanage their land soon go broke, and are forced to
sell out to those who do not. Result: land quickly moves into hands that
practice sound land management. This is simply a fact. To deny it is as
absurd as claiming that water, under standard conditions, runs uphill. To
the extent that there are real problems of land management in South
America, they arise in precisely the same way as elsewhere: due to the
failure of the governments in the area to protect private property rights.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>  (If you think private owners "desertify" their land by
> >clear-cutting all of their timber, talk to the people at Weyerhauser.)
> 
> Oh good! Let's compare a rich soiled temperate country to a desertified
> equatorial poverty stricken hole. Real intelligent comparison!

***{Careful, your ignorance of history is showing. The "desertified
equatorial poverty stricken holes" to which you refer lie, in many cases,
in regions which were once under Roman or Carthaginian dominion, and where
property rights were protected. During those times, those regions were
lush with greenery, and were highly productive agricultural lands. I
suggest that you obtain from archaeological sources a map of Roman and
Carthaginian ruins in and around the present-day Sahara, and ask yourself
why they built their cities in the desert. If you do so, you may begin to
suspect that the expansion of the Sahara is a byproduct of socialism,
rather than a purely climatological phenomenon. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> >It
> >is only because the land in backward countries is owned by "everyone"
> >(i.e., by no one) that desertification occurs.
> 
> I suggest you actually know something about that which you write.
> Desertification is caused by OVER POPULATION and bad social practices
> brought in by good souls just trying to civilize the heathens.

***{Again, baloney. The population densities in the countries of the
Sahara do not even begin to approach those in many of the advanced,
capitalist countries. The problem there is not overpopulation, but
underindustrialization, and the cause of the underindustrialization is
socialism itself, and the attendant refusal of socialist governments to
protect property rights. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> As civilized people we have been forced by our own morals to introduce
> medical care, the desire for goods that require money to purchase and
> domesticated animals etc. that have caused these other societies to overuse
> their lands, to over populate their lands and to desertify through simple
> overuse. 

***{To repeat: desertification through overuse is not possible if the land
is privately owned. Private owners do not take kindly to strangers coming
onto their land and defoliating it. You need to forget the propaganda that
you are obviously full of, and begin to see with your own eyes and think
with your own brain. These matters are unarguably obvious, if you apply
your reasoning ability to them. Forget what you have been told, and treat
these matters as a problem to be solved with your own intellect.
--Mitchell Jones}***

It isn't our fault, but neither is it theirs and ALL of our
> futures are at stake if the weather patterns change drastically.
> 
>  If you want the advanced
> >countries to do something, for "free," to save the world's weather, you
> >might suggest that they invade the socialist nations, kick out their
> >governments, and restore private property rights. While this is not a
> >policy I recommend, it is the only policy that would work. The rest is
> >just baloney. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Baloney Mitchell -- Tribes in Africa and in South America and even in Asia
> have had these same problems with land even though they have
> historically owned their lands. 

***{Tribal "ownership" is not ownership. This is just a variant of the
"fallacy of the commons," which produced desertification in England, just
a few hundred years ago. What happened was that each English village set
aside a central grazing area (the "commons") where each villager was
entitled to graze his stock. Result: there was no way to protect the land
from overgrazing. Each villager grazed there by right, and so no
individual who saw that the ground cover was being destroyed had any
authority to prevent others from continuing to graze. He could, of course,
pull off his own stock, but they were a small portion of the total, and so
this would not affect the outcome. Thus each villager had an incentive to
participate in the overgrazing, and when the vegetation was destroyed, the
winds blew the topsoil away, leaving sand. Result: the "commons" became a
little desert, like magic! This is precisely what the nomads are doing in
the Sahel (the region that borders the Sahara). They move into an area,
treat it as their village "commons," overgraze it until the topsoil blows
away, and then move on. The expansion of the Sahara is the result. The
only way to prevent this outcome is to grant, and protect, private claims
to the land. Period. --Mitchell Jones}***

What we are seeing is the outcome of
> societies brought too suddenly into the 20th century.

***{Actually, what we are seeing is the outcome of societies *not* brought
into the 20th century. Socialism is a primitive social system that has
failed everywhere it has been tried. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Nice touch, that, about starting a war. Real humanitarian you are.

***{I said it was not a policy I advocate. I guess you only see what you
want to see. Gee, why am I not surprised? --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 14:40:51 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Mitchell Jones writes:
>
>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

Could you please summarise your line of thought which takes even the best
"cold fusion" results publised to date to the production of several
kilowatts of electricity. What are you  assuming?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Mark Muhlestein /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/26 (intro)
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/26 (intro)
Date: 31 Aug 1995 09:09:31 -0600
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah

In article <422t83$4s1@otis.netspace.net.au> rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>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?

I agree. Perhaps it could be posted every 6 months, with pointer
references posted at some smaller interval.

Mark Muhlestein -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 31 Aug 1995 16:28:11 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <tomkDE5JDM.77t@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:

> 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?

There is a good description of the absorption cycle for refrigeration,
using a unit based on the lithium bromide/water system as an example, in
Perry and Chilton's _Chemical Engineering Handbook_.  (My copy is the
fifth edition, and the description starts on page 12-42.)

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian 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 13:12:04 -0900
Organization: none

In article <USE2PCB320277555@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:


>  
> 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.


I knew my writing was awkward when I wrote this.  I should have worked on
it more.  The most important point (assumption) here is the assumption
that the orbital electron location probability distribution remains
*locked in the outer orbital*, i.e. in the surface of the orbital (I know
this is probably not the case but this simplistic model conveys the jist
of my meaning.) and that that surface is located *between* the two
protons.  Under this assumption, if we take a cross sectional plane that
includes both protons, the orbital will be a curve located between them. 
If we then plot the net force on a particle electron at every location on
the curve, and tangent to the curve, we get a two peak distribution.  In
the middle of the humps the tangential forces from each of the two protons
is zero.  As you move away from the midpoint an angle x, the net force is
toward the midpoint of the distribution because the tangential force from
each proton is additive and increasing with the sine of x.  Eventually,
due to the inverse square nature of the electrostatic force, the humps
diminish as you move outward.  If you take this two hump distribution and
rotate it you have the energy well I was referring to, and this, if my
understanding is correct, can be tunneled through.

An electron jumping over the hump need not return if the jump is far
enough because of "shielding" from the attracted shadow. (Maybe I'm dead
wrong here, but the magnetic field considerations complicate this picture
even further.)

As the H nuclei approach each other (for simplicity's sake here still
assuming symmetric geometry, momentums) The size of the well increases. It
seems that even if you consider the well a one way barrier, that at some
point the energy for an electron to pass the barrier (for points inside),
and yet remain in the shell, exceeds the energy of the electrons in the
shell.  This is the basis for my saying an electron, in the particle
sense, would be trapped.


An analagy might be a metal ball bearing (BB) on a table top with a north
pole hanging above and a south pole below the table - two least square law
force points of attraction to an object locked in a plane but free to move
in the plane. While the BB is directly on the midline between the two
poles there is no lateral force on the BB, so it can rest. If the BB is
located off the midline there is a net force toward the midline. If the BB
is far enough away, the force is negligible. So, when on the midline, the
BB is in an energy well, i.e. surrounded by a circular energy barrier, as
is the electron discussed above.

This analogy may not be far removed from the situation when you consider
spin.  The electron shielding provides a neutral, or nearly neutral,
electrostatic force on the H nuclei.  However, it seems like this provides
an environment where spin alignment, and therefore net attraction, can
occur.  Something I am very unclear about is the effect of a magnetic
field purpendicular to the  shell. It seems like this would present a two
way quantum barrier of sorts. Perhaps the field would have to be too large
to be of possible significance in this regard? I.E. so large the electron
cyclotron radius would be small enouh to prevent the electron from
entering (or leaving) the region between the H nuclei. Maybe this is just
some more unclear thinking on my part?


>  
> -> 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".
>  

Here, I understand what you are saying. Perhaps another way of looking at
it is that the neutral (no net attraction/repulsion toward Pd nucleus)
point for the center of the protons wave is outside the center of the
shell.  No net energy can be gained. I was all wet.  Fortunately this
relates only to possibility (c), that no shielding effect exits, and I
don't think anybody believes that.


Thanks for a stimulating theory. I think lots of good minds are pondering
your hypothesis, and this must be good for everyone.

Regards,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Bill Rowe /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
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: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:44:26 -0600
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company

In article <41vumi$1t96@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan
G. Wallace) wrote:

>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. 

[several quotes etc. skipped]

>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.

I am not certain what the point of your post is but it seems you believe
fusion should be relatively easy to achieve.

The information you quoted in the Rhodes book applies to inertial
confinement. This clearly works as evidenced by the existence of the H
bomb. Problem is noone has successfully scaled this to a size where the
energy output exceeds breakeven but doesn't obilerate the fusion facility.

The discharge tube is essentially equivalent to a plasma approach to
fusion. I have no doubt the gas discharge tube described is relatively
simple and cheap to build. It might even generate a few fusion neutrons.
However, I am quite certain if you build one you will find the amount of
enrgy out from any fusion reactions is far less than the amount of energy
you put in to get the fusion to occur. If you doubt this I would suggest
trying the experiment. Also should you decide to try the experiment, you
should be aware most of the fusion energy from a D-T reaction is found in
a 14MeV neutron. If there is any significant fusion energy being produced
you will have quite a few of these neutrons. It is definitely not healthy
or desirable to be exposed to any significant fluence of high energy
particles such as 14MeV neutrons.

-- 
"Against supidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 21:40:29 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <BlHC0am.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>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."
> 

Doggoneit, Jed, which horse are you going to ride? You can't have it both 
ways. Sometimes, you say that most people can't reproduce the cf experiments 
because they don't have the special expertise that it requires. Now you want 
to argue that anybody and his dog can do it. Mebbe you ought to keep notes on 
the positions you have taken.

If you're not careful you'll find youself rebutting your own arguments in a 
single message.

>You have never read any of the published papers on CF, have you? Amazing.
> 
>- Jed

15-yard penalty for using the you-haven't-read-the-literature argument as a 
substitute for presenting facts.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Bill Snyder /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 22:59:55 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <422lsd$6ro_001@ip098.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob
Sullivan) wrote:

>Doggoneit, Jed, which horse are you going to ride? 
>If you're not careful you'll find youself rebutting your own arguments in a 
>single message.

He has done so at least once, over on CompuServe.  It seems that the
reasons Toyota doesn't build a demo unit despite P&F's great progress
are:  a) Toyota is too poor; it chose to allocate its limited
resources to advancing the state of the art rather than doing a demo;
and b) Toyota is too rich; with money burning a hole in its corporate
pocket already, why would it bother with trying to attract more
investors with a demo?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.
lectromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio.misc
Subject: Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 22:46:34 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <41ut8i$udv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote :
[snip]
>The trouble I have with this hunch is that I really can not see any
>real purpose that the asteroid belt interacts with Life on Earth. Some

You need a source of bombs to wipe out the dinosaurs, and give man a
chance to develop. :-)}}}

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 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Matt Austern /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 31 Aug 1995 18:53:25 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <1995Aug31.144051.9451@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.co
 (Dick Jackson) writes:

> Could you please summarise your line of thought which takes even the best
> "cold fusion" results publised to date to the production of several
> kilowatts of electricity. What are you  assuming?

He must be assuming something pretty weird.  Even if you assume that
all of the "cold fusion" results are correct, nobody has ever claimed
that "cold fusion" can produce electricity---just heat.  (And no,
producing heat isn't a sufficient condition for producing
electricity.)  

If all of the "cold fusion" results are correct, then producing more
electricity than you put in is impossible.  I'd say the electric
utilities have nothing to worry about.  But then, there's no evidence
that they actually are worrying.  They aren't trying to suppress
"cold fusion": it's simply beneath their threshold of attention.
-- 
  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:
cuddy31 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / 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: 31 Aug 1995 15:17:03 -0400

dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote:
: In article <browe-3008951444260001@x-147-17-20-187.es.hac.com>,
browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
: > In article <41vumi$1t96@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan
: > G. Wallace) wrote:

: snip

: > 
: >>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.
: > 

: snip again

: > The discharge tube is essentially equivalent to a plasma approach to
: > fusion. I have no doubt the gas discharge tube described is relatively
: > simple and cheap to build. It might even generate a few fusion neutrons.
: > However, I am quite certain if you build one you will find the amount of
: > enrgy out from any fusion reactions is far less than the amount of energy
: > you put in to get the fusion to occur. If you doubt this I would suggest
: > trying the experiment. Also should you decide to try the experiment, you
: > should be aware most of the fusion energy from a D-T reaction is found in
: > a 14MeV neutron. If there is any significant fusion energy being produced
: > you will have quite a few of these neutrons. It is definitely not healthy
: > or desirable to be exposed to any significant fluence of high energy
: > particles such as 14MeV neutrons.
: > 

:     I was waiting for someone else to point this out, but no one has, so I
: guess I will.  Such devices are in fact quite common and are commercially
: available.  The consist of a tube with an electrostatic accelerator and a
: target with deuterium or tritium.  They are used to produce neutrons for well
: logging.  They do not by any stretch of the imagination produce net energy 
: gain, however.

: Dave Wark

I have a copy of one of the articles in my files.  The D + T device yields     
6 X 10^9 neutrons per pulse with a pulse length of 10 microseconds and peak
voltage of 180 kev.  Each D + T reaction generates 17.59 Mev with 14 Mev going
to the neutron, a nice multiplication factor.  The threshold for the reaction
is about 20 kev.  The normal safety procedure is to stay at least 3 feet away
from the generator when it fires.  As I point out in my post, the device is
used to trigger the hydrogen bomb and the fuel for the bomb is lithium
deuteride.  The new information that came from Rhode's book is that lithium7
acts as a neutron multiplier which leads to a chain reaction and lithium6.  If
they had used the natural isotope ratio of 92.48 % for lithium7 the Bravo
explosion would have been even larger.  The second important point is that you
don't need a thermonuclear temperature to burn lithium deuteride, all you need
is a neutron to fission lithium6 and it yields 4.78 Mev and T.  This is more
then enough energy to ignite the D + T reaction that gives a 14 Mev neutron to
continue the process.  The melting point for lithium deuteride is 680 degrees
C and helium could be used as the heat exchange medium.  The flux from the
neutron generator and design parameters and perhaps a secondary safety system
could be used to keep the fusion reactor under control.

Bryan
wallaceb@gate.net

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace 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 22:14:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I pointed out that at CF conferences, bald headed scientist spend four days
talking about experiment that worked. Contrary to Matt's imaginary scenario
they do not all file in front of the podium and say "another year, but no
result yet." In response Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Doggoneit, Jed, which horse are you going to ride? You can't have it both
>ways. Sometimes, you say that most people can't reproduce the cf experiments
>because they don't have the special expertise that it requires. Now you want
>to argue that anybody and his dog can do it. Mebbe you ought to keep notes on
>the positions you have taken.
 
You statement is absurd. The scientists who attend cold fusion conferences
are experts. Most of them are in their 60s, and they have done
electrochemistry for 40 years. They have the special expertise required to
replicate the work. At the conferences they spend days talking about the
nitty gritty detail. That is what the conferences are for!
 
Look here, think about a conference on brain surgery or medieval Japanese
literature. Pretend that you have spent the last four days listening to
lectures and looking a slides of the latest techniques in these fields.
Okay, does that make you an expert, ready to walk into any operating room
and take over? If the professor of ancient Japanese literature is out of
town are you prepared to take over her class for the day? Are you some kind
of 5 day wonder who can master a new language in a few days and read a few
hundred books? I doubt it. By the same token, if you were to throw together
an electrochemical experiment in CF, or in any other form of surface
catalysis, you will make DOZENS of stupid mistakes. For that matter, if you
tried to take care of 200 chickens for a monthy you would kill a lot of them,
and if you tried to fix transmission in my car you would probably botch it.
Most jobs require experience, practice and skill. Even jobs that most people
think are easy. If you think that electrochemistry is easy, then you know
nothing about it. Try spending a few hours at a CF conference and you will
realize how little you know.
 
Sullivan also writes:
 
>15-yard penalty for using the you-haven't-read-the-literature argument
>as a substitute for presenting facts.
 
People like Matt who refuse to read the literature are not even playing the
game. They do not even a clue where the stadium is. Anyone who dares to
critique CF without reading the literature is a flaming imbicile, not fit to
call himself a scientist. It is first rule of science that before you open
your yap, you must have some idea what the hell you are talking about, and
you can only learn by reading and by doing. ESP does not work. Word of mouth
distorted descriptions of papers are garbage. YOU MUST READ ORIGINAL SOURCES.
 
You talk about 'presenting facts' to me. Ha! I have put more facts here than
all the "skeptics" combined. You are demanding that I spoon feed Matt more
facts, and more. You want me to do his homework for him. Forget it! I have
two kid at home, I don't need any more.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 22:34:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> writes:
 
>Redondi emphasises that Galileo was one of the "stars" of Italian thought,
>with much support among the powerful, including the Pope himself.  He
 
Yes, I know. That is why Galileo got away with such a lousy first-iteration
experiment. They cut him a lot of slack because he was a scientific V.I.P.
If he had been some nobody (grad student), they never would have come to look
through the telescope in the first place. Of if they had come, they would
have said: "For goodness sake get this thing mounted properly! Get rid of
these double images. Call us back when you are ready to do the experiment
right." My point (Koestler's point, really) is that he did a sloppy job at
first, but he got away with it anyway. We have a romantic, oversimplified
version of history today, in which the opponents were all nincompoops who
refused to look through the telescope. Some of them were, but others were
good scientists with high standards who refused to settled for a half-baked
experiment. When he started doing it right, they came around.
 
The parallel to CF is instructive. Many of the 1989 replication were schlock
science. Hastily contructed by people who did not know what they were doing,
these experiments proved nothing either way. Even when they appeared to work,
they proved nothing. However, by the end of 1989, and by mid 1990 many
good, careful replications emerged. A true scientist at that time would
critisize the early work, suspend judgement, and wait. When the quality
experiments from people like Bockris, McKubre and Miles came along, a true
scientist would come around. That is what the Japanese did, and that is why
they are seriously at work on CF today. They understand that you have wait,
and look at results a few years down the road. In the U.S., unfortunately,
people dismissed CF in a couple of months, before the quality experiments
even began. This rush to judgement was absurd and unscientific. At the time,
I was could hardly believe those rabid denouciations. I never imagined that
trained, professional scientists would jump to conclusions so quickly, with
so little evidence to go on. The DoE report in particular was a travesty.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.30 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 20:11:09 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-2908951849370001@austin-2-16.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

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

I did not mean to imply the phrase "over unity" could only imply breakdown
of conservation laws. I have been using the phrase in the same sense as
you, i.e., more energy out than in when the fuel isn't considered. Clearly
the assumption in CF is the fuel is deutrium.

>> 
>> 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}*** 

I think to a large extent we agree on what belief means. You are correct
in saying I personally can't poke holes in the validity of the results. I
strongly suspect the uncertainty in the data is larger than what has been
suggested. Measurement uncertainty hasn't been adequately addressed as far
as I can determine. Jed Rothwell keeps citing things like the manual for
the Dranetz meter as if that is all that needs to be done to assess
measurement uncertainty.

>> 
>> 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}***

I am not entirely sure what your point is here. You seem to be suggesting
two possible motivations for my support of conventional fusion

a) fear of ridicule from my peers or
b) loss of funding/income

As I pointed out earlier my peers have no interest in my views on fusion
so a) isn't applicable. In addition, I derive no income in any form from
conventional fusion research.

Your argument that it is irrational to support conventional fusion seems
to stem from an opinion that current conventional research is pursuing a
dead end. While I agree progress is not as rapid as some initially thought
it would be I don't agree this is a dead end.

I have skipped your discussion comparing conventional fusion researchers
to looters because I agree this is getting off topic. I do not agree the
comparison is justified. In fact, I think this type of comparison is
inflamnatory and obscures meaningful dialog of science. We can pursue this
further in email if you wish.
-- 
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 03:58:34 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <41t47e$4nh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote :

>It seems to me that you forget the possibility that the electron occupies
>an orbit around the D or H some of the time. I think time sharing occurs
>and the electron occupies a high orbit around the metal ion part of the
>time, the other part of the time it will be in orbit around the H or D.
>You could also say that it is in a mixed state. My experience shows the
>quantum mechanical wave function is a physical reality not just our
>imagination. The electrons generate a charge cloud around the atom. This
>is not like a narrow shell but a diffuse cloud-like charge distribution. 
>
>You have a very good point when you describe polarization i.e. change in
>the electron cloud charge distribution. Since the H or D is a localized
>positive charge, the electrons will tend to spend more time around it then
>elsewhere. 
>
>The reason why the electron capture does not happen all the time in nature
>is because of the 800 keV or so energy needed to emit the neutrino and
>finalize the electron capture. I suspect partial electron captures happen

Given that the Coulomb energy of the electron relative to the nucleus
is not normally taken into consideration in mass calculations, I
suspect that this energy barrier is in fact nearer to 100keV.
[snip]

Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Edward Lewis /  a plasmoid article
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a plasmoid article
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:03:13 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of people's theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of people's premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a "crisis period," and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500(1).  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of "plasmoid" phenomena.

	In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term "magnetic lines of force") of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts(2).
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity(3).  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission(45), and ball lightning-like phenomena(6) has been associated
with neutron production also.  Matsumoto has shown traces of plasmoids
that moved on the surface of emulsions while emitting little plasmoids
people might call particles (like the "Superstar" trace in FUS. TECH.,
22, 165 (August, 1992), Fig. 8).  Like other plasmoids, atoms may
clump and divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and
isotopes, and electricity and light are produced.  It seems that
plasmoid phenomena are the same though the size varies.  For example,
galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams, and electrical currents in
the middle,in that which seems to be a vortex, such as in the galaxies
M87, Cygnus A, and NGC4258, and this seems to be similar to the jets,
beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the beams and
electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the beams from
discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et al., and the
beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion that Matsumoto
showed(7).  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning, plasmoids, tornadoes
and galaxies are similar phenomena since they behave similarly(8).

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes(9), and according to A. Peratt(10), he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt(11) and
Lerner(12) have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories
that model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as
Bostick(13,14,15) developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For
decades, many people have tried to use plasmoids for weapons(16,17)
and for fusion, and it is well known that plasmoids are associated
with element, isotope, and neutron production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, after reading literature about ball
lightning and reading cold fusion articles, I began to tell(18)
Matsumoto and other people about my idea that tiny ball-lightning
phenomena were produced in "cold fusion" apparatus, and about how the
ball lightning phenomena that were produced by electrolysis "cold
fusion" apparatus produced the many kinds of micrometer sized
anomalous traces in nuclear emulsions that Matsumoto had shown in
several articles in THE JOURNAL OF FUSION TECHNOLOGY.  Since then,
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus(19,20,21), and
he has produced many more traces that are better evidence of the
production of things that can be called tiny ball lightning or
plasmoids.  I use the term plasmoid as a general term.
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and "cavitation" seems
to be a phenomena of the water and other substances converting to
light and perhaps electricity, and to other atoms and bigger
micrometer-sized plasmoids.  The pits and the localized melting seem
to be plasmoid and discharge effects.  The vortex phenomena
photographed by Stringham and George are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks(22)), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids,
even very large ones), and magnetism change around their cold fusion
and plasmoid apparatus.  There is much evidence of anomalous changes
of these things around and in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge
phenomena, ball lightning, solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.
The changes of the accretion of plasmoid phenomena associated with
plasmoid phenomena is the production of new elements and substances.
For example, a BL-like phenomena landed on a hill near Vladivostok in
Russia called Height 611.  It left residues of rare earths, strange
alloys, and filaments of quartz with filaments of gold 7 micrometers
wide inside(23).  Check for superconductivity, since this is a
plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I suspect that storms on earth greatly
affect at least some CF apparatus.  Hawkins(24) and others(25)
reported that a electrolysis apparatus exhibited heat and gamma-ray
excursions at the times of electrical storms, but not otherwise.  In
this vein, it is interesting that V. A.  Filimonov reports that a
neutron source greatly stimulates CF phenomena(26).  Lightning is
associated with neutron production(27).  I'm speculating that neutrons
are a plasmoid environment, like larger plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show(28) about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992(29),
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
that flew around, changed colors, and made a noise by fracturing a
certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of elements with big
differences of "oxidation state"(29) or electronegativity may prove
useful; this seems superficially similar to Hora, Miley et al.'s(30) idea
of using differences in Fermi level.

-------Footnotes

1) E. Lewis, "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions," manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
2)For example, electron holography provides a means of converting
electrons to light.
3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1),
4 (Summer, 1994).
4)W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, "Pair
Production of Plasma Vortices," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
5)K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
6)G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink, "Performance of a High-Voltage Test
Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc. First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) -- The Science
of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6, 1988, World
Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
7)T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992); Fig. 2b.
8)E. Lewis, "Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
9)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).
10)A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
11)A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets," IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
12)Eric Lerner, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, New York, 1991.
13)W. Bostick, "The Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring," 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
14)W. Bostick, "How Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,"
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
15)W. Bostick, "Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology," Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain
sent me this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
16)J. Tennenbaum, "Behind the Russian SDI Offer: A Scientific,
Technological, and Strategic Revolution," 21st Century Science &
Technology, p. 36, Summer 1993.
17)"USAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
18)E. Lewis, "A Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of
Experiments to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction
about Phenomena," manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
19)T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical
Discharge in Water," distributed at the ICCF4.
20)T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water," sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
21)T. Matsumoto, "Two Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 26, 1337 (December 1994).
22)E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 abstract
booklet about two experiments.
23)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, April 1, 1995, 11:30 P.M.
24)N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,"
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
25)N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
"Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Proc. Conf.
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
26) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,"
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com),
January 21, 1995.
27) S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
28)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
29)E. Lewis, "A Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory," manuscript article, submitted to
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, December 1992.
30)G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / mitchell swartz /  Is Griggs Expeiriment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs Expeiriment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:43:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <MATT.95Aug31115325@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) writes:

"If all of the "cold fusion" results are correct, then producing more
electricity than you put in is impossible." 

  1)  Why?
  2) If your hypothesis is correct, is it not also true
for "hot fusion"?

  Best wishes.
       Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS 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 21:04:33 -0900
Organization: none

In article <420esk$5me@seymour.sfu.ca>, David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote:

> 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 



I believe the radius of Pd +2 ion is .8 A and Pd +4 is .65 A, while the H
-1 ion has the comparatively large radius of 1.54 A.  I just don't see how
that big H ion could ever fit into the lattice.  Do you know how this is
possible?




> 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.
>  

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 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 31 Aug 1995 08:04:36 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote (amongst other things):

>.....no cold fusion proponent......is claiming that such violations
>(of the laws of physics) are taking place. Instead the universal
>presumption is that there is some energy source buried in these
>devices which......would remove the appearence that they are
>really over unity.

Yes and no! We should not get hung up on whether cold fusion
violates or does not violate the known laws of physics. At the 
very least it violates presumed knowledge of how we are able
to exploit the laws to obtain useful energy.

Radioactivity discovered by the Curies did violate the known laws
of the time. The unraveling of radiactivity lead to the theory of
nuclear structure and the whole science of nuclear physics which
would most certainly have been regarded by 19th century physicists
as a violation of their laws. We say instead that we have the laws
of nuclear physics. It is the apparent violation of these laws which
causes the scepticism of nuclear physicists.

By analogy we have a phenomenon which we are finding hard to
reconcile with the way in which we thought these laws worked.
(Coulomb barriers for example). Speculation is the order of the day.
Maybe it works in this way, maybe in that. We have to try a lot of
different things. In all probability it is not one very simple thing.
(Why palladium, for example).

My humble opinion is that these phenomena will, in the end, cause
us to re-define the way in which the laws of physics work at both
the atomic (lattice) and nuclear levels. I do not know this for a fact
but I would say that the explanations "within the known laws" are
pushing those laws to the point of rupture. 

"Where is the source of this energy?" addressed to the Curies would
probably have met with the answer: "We do not know". However X-ray
photographs followed soon after the discovery. Lack of complete
understanding did not prevent useful applications.

Very Best Wishes,Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.31 /  dwark@vax.oxfo /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 31 Aug 95 11:01:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <browe-3008951444260001@x-147-17-20-187.es.hac.com>,
browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
> In article <41vumi$1t96@seminole.gate.net>, wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan
> G. Wallace) wrote:

snip

> 
>>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.
> 

snip again

> The discharge tube is essentially equivalent to a plasma approach to
> fusion. I have no doubt the gas discharge tube described is relatively
> simple and cheap to build. It might even generate a few fusion neutrons.
> However, I am quite certain if you build one you will find the amount of
> enrgy out from any fusion reactions is far less than the amount of energy
> you put in to get the fusion to occur. If you doubt this I would suggest
> trying the experiment. Also should you decide to try the experiment, you
> should be aware most of the fusion energy from a D-T reaction is found in
> a 14MeV neutron. If there is any significant fusion energy being produced
> you will have quite a few of these neutrons. It is definitely not healthy
> or desirable to be exposed to any significant fluence of high energy
> particles such as 14MeV neutrons.
> 

    I was waiting for someone else to point this out, but no one has, so I
guess I will.  Such devices are in fact quite common and are commercially
available.  The consist of a tube with an electrostatic accelerator and a
target with deuterium or tritium.  They are used to produce neutrons for well
logging.  They do not by any stretch of the imagination produce net energy 
gain, however.

Dave Wark
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendwark cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep  1 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
