1995.09.07 /  jfurnes@ibm.ne /  Re: Sonoluminescence Water
     
Originally-From: jfurnes@ibm.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence Water
Date: 7 Sep 1995 18:30:28 GMT

In <42n10i$ji5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, iweld4u@aol.com (I Weld 4U) writes:
>I'm building an icosahedral array of piezoelectric transducers to see if
>higher and more uniform sound fields will give brighter sonoluminescence.
>The array will be immersed in degassed water. Since I'll be using so much
>water I need a way to prepare lots and don't want to try batch after
>batch. My proposed process would be to boil water in the microwave for
>five minutes in a pressure cooker and then cool without breaking the
>regulator seal, in the fridge, and to break the seal only just before use.
>I think I want a floating cover over the immersion tank to limit air
>reabsorbtion. Ideally, I'd like to buy 55 gallon drums of appropriately
>processed water. 

We have a 5kw total power 20khz system that works best WITH gas added.
Reducing the desolved gasses also seems to reduce (visible) light
given off. Published stuff seems to agree with what we see in the application.

Jim 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjfurnes cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 4 Sep 1995 15:08:22 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <41vhnu$t2m@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> 
dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland ) writes:
>
>Reproducibility is proportional to knowledge of the mechanism the
>experiment is designed to test. 

This is a common misconception about physics.  We do not have to 
know the mechanism, only the circumstances.  The belief that some 
theoretical understanding lies behind good experiments is an illusion 
produced by a few, highly-publicized, recent experiments in high 
energy physics.  The history of the first few weeks after the 
discovery of high-Tc supercondcutivity is that of following a 
recipe (and modifying same) without any clue about why it works. 
That mechanism remains in dispute, but the phenomenon is reproducible. 

>                                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. 

It is important to define the experiment clearly so it is possible to 
isolate those features that make it work and that, if changed, make 
it fail.  That is the starting point for understanding and also the 
key to reproducibility. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 16:07 -0500 (EST)

<singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
 
-> There is a coupling which occurs between the deuterons and the
-> soft x-rays which cannot occur between hard x-rays or gamma rays.
->
-> The exact mechanism which engenders fusion at this point is totally missed
-> by the designers themselves.  It is not the energy imparted to the
-> deuterons but a special relationship that develops between them (and is
-> not collisional) which allows them to undergo nuclear fusion.
 
That is interesting.  Is the intensity of the X-rays important?  That is, is
the fusion reaction rate linear with the incident intensity, or is there a
"threshold" involved?  If it is linear then it would appear that a device could
be made with LiD which would produce fusions, and would be under total control.
The X-rays could be produced via normal discharge methods.  Would this work,
or do you have to have a high intensity before any reaction takes place?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: 6 Sep 1995 19:24:56 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <BpEAEs3.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>Jones has retracted his findings and he now says that cold fusion is not
>real. Therefore I do not include him among the ranks of cold fusion
>researchers. 

So that is why you did not include him among the group of all past 
and present experimenters who attended conferences etc and also post 
on sci.physics.fusion.  Your results determine whether you are a 
researcher.  The folks reading this on sci.physics also might not 
realize that Jones has done other experiments on cold fusion, such 
as his sonoluminescence work, than his first approach -- which he 
refined until he showed that his original signal was just noise. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Robert Heeter /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 8 Sep 1995 00:21:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <42b7c0$jj3@sake.wwa.com> Tom Droege, droege@wwa.com writes:
>OK, the contributors (only contributors have a vote in this matter) have 
>until early December to tell me what to do.  BTW, I do construe the money
>as a "gift".  Otherwise there would be a tax problem.  I still want to
>do something before the end of the year to eliminate any question.

I didn't contribute, but I have what I think is a very good
suggestion for making use of the funds on a fusion-related
project.

In my spare time over the past year I have been working with
the Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP), which is 
a small nonprofit group of high school and college teachers and 
professional physicists who design and put out classroom
materials on contemporary physics topics.  Many of you have
probably seen their chart "Standard Model of Fundamental 
Particles and Interactions".  We have assembled an excellent
classroom chart "Fusion - Physics of a Fundamental Energy
Source", and done a small field test (50 classrooms) this
past spring.  The group is now searching for donations to allow
them to make an initial printing of several thousand charts,
which will then be used in introductory high school and 
college physics classes.  

Those who would like more information about CPEP may want
to visit their primary Web site at http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/cpep.html.
We expect to have a lot of Web pages for the Fusion project
available soon (as soon as I can get them set up!).  I'll announce
the Fusion Group pages here when they're ready.

This would also be a charitable contribution and would be a
little closer to fusion than TASS, though I don't want to
denigrate TASS as a worthy cause.  

In case anyone is interested in making a donation, CPEP's
Vice President for Fusion is Ted Zaleskiewicz, whose email
address is zpt@vms.cis.pitt.edu.  (You may wish to mention
my name so he doesn't get confused!)  Any individual or
organization which contributes $5000 towards the printing
costs is likely to be rewarded by an acknowledgement in
the corner of the chart.  I think it would be really awesome
if we could list "Readers of the Internet discussion group
sci.physics.fusion" on the bottom!

Please let me know what you all think!

If anyone would like more information about CPEP and
the Fusion Project, I'm happy to talk.

----------------
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Speaking only for myself...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Kasagi D -> Deuterated Ti experiments
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi D -> Deuterated Ti experiments
Date: 8 Sep 1995 00:41:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <425pm3$f14@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Martin Sevior,
msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>>>In article <1995Aug21.164345.2367@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
>says...
>>>
>>>2.  I am intrigued (on the other hand) by a recent paper by J. Kasagi et al.
>>>of Tohoku University which shows results from a 150-keV deuteron beam
>>>impinging on titanium deuteride.
>>>J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 64 (1995) 777-783.
>>>
>>>  Their work is clearly not "cold fusion,"
>>>since the beam energy is 150-keV.  But the results do seem to show anomalous
>>>production of protons of energies up to 17 MeV and alphas up to 6.5 MeV.

Thanks for the copy of the paper, Prof. Jones.  Several of my classmates
and
I went over it this afternoon as an exercise.  I believe Martin has come
very close to correctly explaining the results:
>
>These results are easily explained with  conventional Physics. What happens
>is that recoiling 3He nuclei from the reaction d + d=> 3He + p 
>initiate the reaction:
>
>3He + d => p + 4He. This second reaction releases 18 MeV and is the source of
>the high energy protons and Helium.
>
>The d + d =>  3He + P reaction occurs with an energy release of about 4 MeV.

As someone else pointed out, it's actually 3He + n, but that's not
important.

>The 3He comes off with 1 MeV and the proton with 3 MeV due to their different
>masses.

[... calculation of the expected magnitude of 4He production trimmed... ]

>More than enough to explain the observed 10^-6 anomalus events. The tails of
>alpha's and protons that extend to 6 MeV and 19 MeV are pile-up events of
>protons from the primary dd reactions on top of these secondary reaction
>products.

It's important to note that the kinematics of the subsequent 
3He + d => p + 4He reaction allow a "spread" in the energies of
the product p and 4He.  Our calculation of the spread was 2.6 MeV.
This means that the nominally 14.7 MeV protons will have energies
from 12.1 to 17.3 MeV.  They will shed a little of that energy while
transiting the thin absorber foils, thus producing the observed "bump"
in the reported results (Figures 1 and 2).  The alphas, nominally born
at 3.6 MeV, will have energies up to 6.2 MeV, which also seems to
be consistent with the experiments (Figure 4).  There should be
similar alpha losses from T + D reactions from the other branch
of the D-D reaction (D + D => T + p).

I don't think the high-energy particles are really anomalous.
In any case, it's certainly not necessary to invoke a 12-order of
magnitude enhancement of the 3-body reaction rate to explain the
observations.  Kasagi et al claim to have considered the D-3He
secondary reaction, but I would have to see some detail before
I consider the above explanation adequately refuted.

 -------------------------------
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Speaking only for myself, though I discussed the paper with others.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Richard Blue /  Re: Kasagi three body reaction
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi three body reaction
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:50:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones indicates that the Kasagi data on 17 MeV protons from
d on TiD indicates three-body kinematics.  I would be curious as to
what distinguishes the kinematics for a three-body reaction from
a sequencial reaction?  Why would anyone expect one of these alternatives
to be more likely than the other?

As for my FAX number, alas I am crippled in that regard.  I have no FAX
number.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  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: Sat, 9 Sep 95 21:20:48 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>5-yard, delay-of-game penalty for the you-haven't-read-the-literature 
>argument.
>
>15 yard penalty, personal foul -- ad hominem attack.  Don't confuse ad hominem 
>attacks with scientific argument.
 
What is this crap supposed to mean? The guy has not read the literature,
therefore he knows nothing, therefore his postings are useless garbage.
Are you saying it is okay to post messages about a scientific subject
without reading the literature? Are you saying that ignorant, stupid,
mistaken statements based on imagination are just as valid as carefully
referenced statements based on a close reading of the experimental
evidence? Science is supposed to be about matters of fact, not imagination
or mere opinion. The question here is: Can CF be reliably reproduced? The
answer is yes, a person skilled in the art can reproduce it in a reasonable
amount of time with a high probability of success after, say, ten tries.
That is a *fact*. I say it is, because I know the people who have done it
and I have read their papers & patents describing what they did in detail.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
Date: 11 Sep 1995 19:21:22 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <431fbc$kcc@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard  
Schultz) writes:
> 
> "I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
> 			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992

That is a classic line. It reminds me of the aphorism:
``when a theorist gives a presentation, he believes it himself but
no one else believes it; when an experimentalist gives a presentation,
everyone else believes it but he doesn't believe it himself.''

Jed seems to have selectively combined the worst of the theorist
and experimentalist :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 11 Sep 1995 13:20:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

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

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


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

* 1) Contents

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


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

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


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

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


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

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


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

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


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

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

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

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

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

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

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

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

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

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


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

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

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

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

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


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

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

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


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

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

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


* 5) Mail Server

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

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

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


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

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

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

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


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

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

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

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

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


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

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

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


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Belgium
-------

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

Canada
------

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

Finland
-------

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

France
------

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

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

Korea
-----

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

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

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

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

Sweden
------

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

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

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

Taiwan
------

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

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

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

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

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



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 /  Labrys /  Mea Culpa
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3116-10.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mea Culpa
Date: 8 Sep 1995 12:07:03 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

My apologies for the comments on "speling" & " Gramur". They were
made in fun, with no malice intended (similar to the lighthearted
jests we make at each other in alt. or rec. groups) Since this
is not one of those groups my comments were inappropriate. I apologize
again. While I am skeptical of CF I still wish you all the luck
in achieving your goals.(It is easy to get caought up in one's
own "pet" projects (ICF for me) & think others are not significant.) 

Peace
Teresa
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                | |
                                | | 
                                | |
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 11:38:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> asks:
 
     "(1) Have you read any of the standard scientific literature (including,
     if you wish, standard undergraduate textbooks) on quantum mechanics in
     general and nuclear physics in particular?"
 
Nope. Never read it. That level of nuclear physics is completely over my head,
as I have stated a couple hundred time here. Because I know nothing about it,
I NEVER EVER comment on it. As I said, I firmly believe that people who have
not read the literature and who have not learned the subject should never
attempt to judge it.
 
 
     "(2) (a) If the answer to (1) is "yes" then why do you continue to
     behave as if the objections raised to your hypotheses from standard
     physics are not objections of high weight, and as if you haven't a clue
     what ZPE is?"
 
As I stated about a hundred times here, I have no idea whether standard
physics conflicts with CF or not. Some experts say it does, other experts,
like Hagelstein, Chubb, Preparata and Schwinger say it does not. I cannot
judge. I note, however, that Hagelstein, Chubb and others CF scientists have
published extensive theories, whereas the people who claim standard physics
conflicts with CF results have published nothing as far as I know. Not even a
critique of the Hagelstein theory. So I do not think they are rigorous or
serious.
 
In any case, if -- hypothetically -- someone ever does come along and
rigorously proves that according to quantum mechanics the CF effect cannot
occur, that will be the death of quantum mechanics. Whenever theory conflicts
with high sigma replicated data, theory loses. If you disagree you are doing
religion, not science.
 
 
     "(b) If the answer to (1) is "no" then please explain why it is okay for
     you to have not read the literature, but not okay for anyone else to
     have done so?"
 
It is okay for me to have not read the literature as long as I never make
comments or take sides in debate about theory, except to assert basic
scientific concepts like 'data beats theory.' As it happens, I *have* read
some of the theory literature, and I do understand it to some extent. For
example, I understand Schwinger well enough here:
 
     "The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.
 
          It is a standard operation procedure, in hot fusion work, to
     represent the reaction rate as the product of two factors: the barrier
     penetration probability, which involves only the Coulomb repulsion; and,
     the intrinsic reaction rate, which is dominated by nuclear forces. But,
     at the very low energy of cold fusion, one is dealing, essentially, with
     a single wavefunction, which does not permit such factorization. The
     effect of Coulomb repulsion cannot be completely isolated from the
     effect of the strongly attractive nuclear forces. This is a whole new
     ballgame. It is, so to speak, a sumo tournament restricted to the
     maku-no-uchi, indeed, to the yokuzuna.
 
     . . .
 
          Imagine, then, a small but macroscopic piece of the lattice
     absorbs the excess energy of the HD or DD reaction. Please -- I beg of
     you -- do not rise in high dudgeon to protest that this is impossible
     because of the great disparity between atomic and nuclear energy scales.
     That is a primitive reaction to what may be a very sophisticated
     mechanism. And do not forget the failure of theory to predict, and then
     to account for the phenomenon of high temperature superconductivity. I
     advance the idea of the lattice playing a vital role as a hypothesis.
     Past experience dictates that I remind you that a hypothesis is not
     something to be proved mathematically. Rather, it is a basis for
     correlating data and for proposing new tests, which, by their success or
     failure, support or discredit the validity of the hypothesis. It is the
     essence of the scientific method."
 
     - J. Schwinger, Dec. 7, 1991, "Cold Fusion -- Does it have a future?"
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / 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: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 21:18:05 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-0609951426130001@austin-1-11.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-0409951356500001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> Even assuming all of the data for the Griggs device represents a new
>> source of energy resulting in a COP of 1.6, it is a major jump to believe
>> this can be improved significantly. 
>
>***{Why is that, Bill? I challenge you to name any fuel for which the
>first use was as efficient as the technology that developed later. Wood,
>for example, was at first burned in the open, and most of the energy was
>wasted heating the air and the ground. Modern wood burning stoves are
>vastly more efficient than this, in terms of delivering the energy to the
>desired target (e.g., to a stewpot). The same can be said of every other
>fuel: coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, propane,
>U235--you name it. (Do you think they still use the original Fermi
>graphite pile design in modern nuclear power plants? Do you believe that
>modern gasoline engines are not more efficient than those of 100 years
>ago?) Bottom line: the initial technology which demonstrates the use of a
>fuel as an energy source is always grossly inefficient compared to the
>technology that develops later.Your doubt that this would be the case with
>"cold fusion" runs contrary to the uniform pattern of human experience
>dating back to the stone age, and is one more piece of evidence, in a pile
>that is already mountainously high, that your criticisms of this new
>technology are based on emotion rather than reason. I don't know what your
>hidden agenda is, but it is becoming crystal clear that you have one.
>--Mitchell Jones}***

I notice in all of the examples you cited above there was a pretty solid
understanding of what created the heat/power and why the development
improved the situation. The point I was making is this level of
understanding has not been achieved for the Griggs device. Consequently, I
see it as a major leap of faith to assume it can be made into a practical
energy source at this time. I will agree if the effect is real and it is
understood then it may be possible to improve on it.

>The only real evidence of the Griggs
>> device having a COP greater than unity is the calorimetry. Certainly, the
>> energy isn't created from nothing. Something must be acting as the fuel
>> while something else acts to "burn" that fuel. How can anyone hope to
>> scale the COP to say a factor of 3 when neither the fuel nor the mechanism
>> for "burning" that fuel have been identified?
>
>***{It is clear that the fuel is present in water, Bill, and it is also
>clear that the Griggs device is a mechanism for "burning" it. That level
>of understanding, plus a program of experimentation with similar devices
>(i.e., cavitation void generators), should suffice to elevate the
>efficiency of the technology. Do you believe that stone age man had an
>accurate theory of combustion when he discovered the clay ovens which he
>used to melt copper, tin, lead, and zinc, thereby inaugurating the bronze
>age? Do you think the ancient Chinese had an accurate theory of combustion
>before they discovered the air-injection furnace and began to produce iron
>and steel? You position is absurd, Bill. You would have us wait until we
>know everything about a prototype device before we begin the experimental
>process that is necessary to improve it. But why? What is the biasing
>factor that is preventing you from seeing the obvious, relative to this
>technology? Do you think you are demonstrating gameness by hurling
>yourself off the cliff and onto the rocks, over and over and over again?

I agree the obvious assumption is the "fuel" is water. I don't agree this
has been shown. Saying the mechanism for "burning" the fuel is the Griggs
device is useless. It does nothing to explain what is going on.

About the only obvious way to increase output from the Griggs device is to
build it bigger. Will this have an effect on efficiency? Perhaps, but I
don't think anyone will know until it is built bigger.

I don't have a hidden agenda here. I simply think expections the Griggs
device can be improved to a COP of say 3 are equivalent to early
expectations for the tokamak. Without more knowledge of how it works you
may well find it is very difficult to achieve better efficiency.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 07:04:06 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <USE2PCB136056839@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
><singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
> 
>-> There is a coupling which occurs between the deuterons and the
>-> soft x-rays which cannot occur between hard x-rays or gamma rays.
>->
>-> The exact mechanism which engenders fusion at this point is totally missed
>-> by the designers themselves.  It is not the energy imparted to the
>-> deuterons but a special relationship that develops between them (and is
>-> not collisional) which allows them to undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
>That is interesting.  Is the intensity of the X-rays important?  That is, is
>the fusion reaction rate linear with the incident intensity, or is there a
>"threshold" involved?  If it is linear then it would appear that a device could
>be made with LiD which would produce fusions, and would be under total control.
>The X-rays could be produced via normal discharge methods.  Would this work,
>or do you have to have a high intensity before any reaction takes place?
> 
>                                                                Marshall

The point is that the atomic cross sections for soft X-rays are much, 
much bigger than the nuclear cross sections (by a factor of 10^8 - 
10^10).  So, if you want to induce fusion using X-rays you'll waste way 
more energy on the photons that "don't make it" than you'll gain from 
the few which do.  This is similar to what's happening when you fire 
deutrons on a tritium target (or vice versa).  You get some fusion 
events, but the total energy generated is many orders of magnitude 
lower than what was spent on accelerating the deutrons in the first 
place.

Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmeron cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / N Maximus /  Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: an581@anon.penet.fi (Naughtyus Maximus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it really matter?
Date: 8 Sep 1995 11:45:53 GMT
Organization: MYOB Inc.

   I have been listening to the arguments on CF ever since it came out. 
Does it really matter if it is fusion or not?  Whatever it is, heat is
being produced.  Heat can be converted to electricity easily, just like in
fuel cells.  Not having done the experiment myself, I don't know if there
is enough energy produced to really do anything.  I think the current
research should focus not on whether it is fusion or not, but can whether
we make use of the effect.

-- 
This post does not reflect the opinions of my family, employer,
government, religion, breakfast cereral, fruit bats, wombats, oragunatan
s, or any other intrest group.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenan581 cudfnNaughtyus cudlnMaximus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Thomas Selby /  Re: How To Spend the $700
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700
Date: 8 Sep 1995 12:41:28 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

As a contributor, if we can't investigate any more dubious claims and 
have to come up with a recipient by year end, I would support.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / 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: 8 Sep 1995 14:04:08 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF



In article <RDEDs1v.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 ....
>The papers from Pons and Fleischmann, on the other hand, were a model of
>how to do groundbreaking science on a shoestring. Their papers are always
>difficult, even for an expert, but they are superb, ...

How the Hell would YOU know?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 /  CoolWar /  HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
Date: 8 Sep 1995 11:55:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

We have been working on a number of approaches to loading fullerene
molecules with deuterium atoms at a high density.  Our lab is not set up
for the type of experiment proposed here so in the name of efficiency I am
requesting a review and comments on the scheme before undertaking a
physical demonstration.  I believe that this procedure has significant
potential for producing the high density endohedral (inside the cage)
loading we want to achieve.  Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Begin by constructing a compressed plug of C60 fullerene in the shape of a
rod.  The compressed rod may require some type of inert binder (suggested
material?) so that it can be configured around a wire electrode.  This
configuration comprises a cathode.  The anode can be fashioned from any
suitable and typical metal.
Prepare a solution of heavy water D2O and deuterium nitrate as an
electrolyte with an acid base.  This should result in ionizing the
deuterium atoms and stripping their electrons leaving them almost
dimensionless D+ atoms.  Set the cathode and the anode in the electrolyte
solution and run a direct current through the circuit. The amount of
current can be varied to the extent necessary to overcome the energy
barrier at the shell of the C60 cage and the electrolyte could be
circulated through a heat exchange loop to keep the temperature below
boiling.  Bubbles should appear around the cathode indicating the D+ ions
have been drawn into the cathode assembly.  As the D+ ions slip through
the C60 cage  they are captured inside and pick up another electron from
the carbon atoms thus stabilizing.  It seems that the process would first
fix D+ions to the outside of the cage but eventual their would be no more
places for them to attach and they would default to the interior.  Once
inside they might also combined to form D2.
That comprises the general outline of the experiment.  I am looking for
any comments regarding the procedure.  Will it work? Why or Why not? Can
you suggest refinements?  Are there other procedures that might be equally
effective?
All help will be gratefully accepted and appreciated.  Looking forward to
your comments.
Sincerely,
Warren L. Cooley
P.O. Box 191394
Sacramento, CA 95819-1394
1-800-713-9345
Thank you. 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 8 Sep 1995 15:43:46 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <an581-0809950746250001@ka3-p-254.dartmouth.edu>,
an581@anon.penet.fi (Naughtyus Maximus) wrote:

>    I have been listening to the arguments on CF ever since it came out. 
> Does it really matter if it is fusion or not?  Whatever it is, heat is
> being produced.  

Well, if we can reproducibly produce that heat at levels greater than that
afforded by conventional means and are confident that the process is safe
and stable, then from a purely technological standpoint it doesn't
matter.  From a scientific standpoint, of course it matters whether or not
the heat be fusion generated.

> Heat can be converted to electricity easily, just like in
> fuel cells.  

Fuel cells are not heat engines.

>Not having done the experiment myself, I don't know if there
> is enough energy produced to really do anything.  I think the current
> research should focus not on whether it is fusion or not, but can whether
> we make use of the effect.

Since each example I've seen described involves input of energy in the
form of work, until the heat produced is greater than that produced by,
say, a heat pump, it won't be feasible.  To look at it from another side,
you'll have to couple the heat output to a heat engine of some sort. 
Until this putative CF/heat engine assemblage can beat conventional
methods on a work_out/work_in basis, it's not feasible.

Energy_out/energy_in arguments don't cut it, as long as the energy_out is
heat and the energy_in is work..

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Bruce TOK /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 8 Sep 1995 14:24:55 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Naughtyus Maximus (an581@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
:    I have been listening to the arguments on CF ever since it came out. 
: Does it really matter if it is fusion or not?  Whatever it is, heat is
: being produced.  Heat can be converted to electricity easily, just like in
: fuel cells.  Not having done the experiment myself, I don't know if there
: is enough energy produced to really do anything.  I think the current
: research should focus not on whether it is fusion or not, but can whether
: we make use of the effect.


What if the effect is due to experimental error?


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / A Plutonium /  Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 11 Sep 1995 11:36:09 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

My newsgroup alt.sci.physics.plutonium had approx 90 posts yesterday,
today it is short of about 60. The below in part was my last post.

In article <42vqps$arh@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   Play the synthesized music by "Quiet Streams" CD of this hymn and
> sing the below
> 
> MY PHOTON SOUL IS WELL
> 
> When peace like a river attendeth my way
> When sorrows like sea billow roll
> Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say
> It is well, it is well with my Soul
> Though radioactive decay will strike and decay
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / 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: 8 Sep 1995 17:58:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <42fir6$89d@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes: 
>
>In article <41vhnu$t2m@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> 
>dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland ) writes:
>>
>>Reproducibility is proportional to knowledge of the mechanism the
>>experiment is designed to test. 
>
>This is a common misconception about physics.  We do not have to 
>know the mechanism, only the circumstances.  The belief that some 
>theoretical understanding lies behind good experiments is an illusion 
>produced by a few, highly-publicized, recent experiments in high 
>energy physics.  The history of the first few weeks after the 
>discovery of high-Tc supercondcutivity is that of following a 
>recipe (and modifying same) without any clue about why it works. 
>That mechanism remains in dispute, but the phenomenon is reproducible.

.. snip

I think we are splitting hairs while agreeing on basics. I meant that
the experiments get better as you more clearly identify the phenomenon
causing the interesting results. Repeated, diverse experiments serve to
identify which elements contribute data and which contribute only
noise. As experimental technique develops, noise sources are
progressively eliminated or calibrated out, and the reproducibility of
the experiment improves. You still may have no theory to explain the
cause of the interesting data, but you get better at reproducing it.

David Wyland

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 11 Sep 1995 17:26:39 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <-1009952000220001@ip-salem2-07.teleport.com>  
<singtech@teleport.com> writes:

> At least, I would think you and others should have the good character to
> hold back belittling those with new ideas even if you think their work not
> worthy of praise.  But when you belittle them you serve no one.
> 
> 
> Since, they are [hot fusion] depleting our pocketbooks, and think they have
> the righteous right to do so, I think a little belittling is their due.
> 

That is an interesting hypocrisy you subscribe to: any flake can post
wacky ideas, and they should not be belittled. But real scientists who
have invested their lives into developing a new energy technology 
deserve to be belittled....



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


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep 12 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
