1995.09.14 / Bruce TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 14 Sep 1995 11:07:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:

: Well, the person I've asked to judge this particular claim is Nick Szabo 
: who was just published in the most recent issue of "Extropians" magazine 
: as predicting economical fusion sometime around the year 2400... that's 
: right, you heard right, 400 years hence.  He has been asked to judge 
: several of the claims in the IFE, and I figure his "public figure" status 
: combined with his, uh, skeptical stance toward fusion should be rather 
: attractive to folks like Art and Bruce.

Nick isn't totally flawless, but I agree he is as good a judge on this
sort of thing as you might get.  I've enjoyed his pieces in sci.space.*
even if I might disagree with some of his economics ideas.

Could you post a contact point for "Extropians"?

--
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:
cuddy14 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:20:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When I suggest that there is no working definition for the term
"cold fusion"  Jed Rothwell launches his usual tirade that I
am wrong because I don't read the literature.  Of course he could
have spent the same band width demonstrating that I am wrong
by giving us the missing definition.

As to the details of what constitutes cold fusion, let me see if
I can construct a picture from the information I have gained from
the little bit of reading I have done.

Here are the facts as I have them:

1) Cold fusion runs on deuterium?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.
2) Cold fusion requires careful attention to chemistry, only skilled
   electrochemists can do it, but the chemistry is incidental the
   process and has never been described.
3) Cold fusion requires the special conditions that may be found inside
   a metal-hydride lattice except when it is done in a totally amorphous
   liquid.
4) Cold fusion may produce some tritium, but only on good days.
5) Cold fusion always produces helium, but you have to look in just the
   wrong place to find it.  Alternatively you must let you samples "age"
   before they are analyzed for helium.
6) Cold fusion requires specific chemical conditions, but we can't rule
   out the possibility that those conditions are not required.
7) Cold fusion is easily reproduced by those who know how, but only a few
   percent of the experimental runs are ever described in publications.
8) Cold fusion involves a high temperature source that is always in thermal
   equilibrium with its surroundings at low temperature.
9) Cold fusion involves the release of energy far in excess to normal atomic
   binding energies, but there is no observable disruption of the atomic
   states in the host material.
10)Cold fusion does produce radiation that fogs dental film packs, but it
   is impossible to do energy spectroscopy on that radiation.  Any experiment
   appropriately instrumented to measure, even crudely, the energy spectrum
   fails to find any of significance.
11)Cold fusion does not produce gamma radiation, mostly.
12)Cold fusion does produce gamma radiation.
13)Cold fusion does not produce 3He.
14)Cold fusion does produce 3He

Now, Jed, why don't you sort through this to correct my mistakes.  Just tell
use which numbers I have wrong.

Now I want to demonstrate that I have read some cold fusion literature, and I
remember something you have forgotten.  You assert that you have never seen a
case in which the energy output of a cold fusion cell tracked the energy input.

I suggest that you return to the very first run shown in the very first
publication by McKubre, et al.   Tell me what you see there.  What I saw is
that for that very first run the heat output from the cell does track rather
closely the input current.  Just as you have indicated that is perhaps not
to be expected.  I commented at the time that I thought it looked a little
strange.  So perhaps we can agree that one of the most careful experimentalists
in the CF community may have screwed up.  I find it very interesting that
this McKubre's very first "positive" result is a candidate for having been
an experimental goof!  It certainly is something that he never replicated.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Ben Bullock /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 16 Sep 1995 03:37:34 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Andrew Cooke (ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk) wrote:

(deleted)

Most of what Cooke posts contains wildly inaccurate statements which
are a simple result of not bothering to check facts before ranting
away with extremely ill-informed and often very stupid opinions.  If
Cooke does not wish to be branded an idiot, he should stop behaving
like one.

--
Ben Bullock @ KEK (national lab. for high energy physics, Tsukuba, Japan)
e-mail: ben@theory.kek.jp  www: http://theory.kek.jp:80/~ben/
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. tel: 0298 64 5403, fax: 0298 64 7831
$@%Y%s!&%V%m%C%/!w9b%(%M%k%.!<J*M}3X8&5f=j(J

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 00:03:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>You have asserted calorimetry is sufficient to show CF haven't you? In
>fact, earlier in this thread you took exception to my statement
>calorimetry is not sufficient to show fusion by making such a statement.
>If calorimetry is sufficient, why isn't shouldn't CF be defined as the
>observation of "excess" heat? If the observation of "excess" heat is not
>sufficient to define CF, what other properties of CF need to be included?
 
Okay, while we are at it, why don't we define hot fusion as excess neutrons
only. We will pretend that HF does not generate heat. CF generates tritium
and helium, but we will just ignore that fact and "define it" by throwing
away half the data.
 
For Goodness Sake! Your answer is sitting right there in your question. It
is Plain As Day:
 
1. Calorimetry *is* sufficient to show CF, just as a neutron detector is
sufficient to show hot fusion. Calorimetry is also sufficient to show
fission in a radioactive sample. The sample gets hot and stays hot, far
beyond the limits of chemistry. You do not need g-m counter to prove that
a sample is radioactive.
 
2. Calorimetery, and excess heat are *not* sufficient to define CF because
there are other vital aspects to the phonomenon that must be taken into
account in order to understand it. You would not define fission by saying
"it produces excess heat and nothing much else." You must also point out that
elements are transmuted. The same is true of a CF sample.
 
Why is this so difficult to understand? The principal signature of the
reaction is heat. But that is not the only signature, and nobody ever said
it was -- except you. Why you say that I do not know, but clearly you have
not read the literature or you do not understand it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 00:14:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Jed, you are the one who said that CF has a status comparable
>to Hi TC superconductors. I said it does not, because no simple
 
I said that people who manufacture HTSC still have quality control problems.
A few years ago, one of them told me he still has to trash a number of
his samples, for reasons that are still not clear to him. I also said that
computer chip manufacturers still have that problem. Does that make CF
"comparable" to HTSC? They both sometimes don't work? Okay, by that standard,
CF is comparable to Volvo manufacturing, flying the space shuttle, and
manufacturing the latest experimental LCDs (see this month's issue of
Popular Science). Big deal. So what. Lots of things are tough to manufacture.
That is why all factories have QA staff members running around testing
samples.
 
CF is comparable in the sense the only about half of CF cathodes work (for
most people -- a few get nearly 100% to work). It is not comparable to HTSC
in the sense that not everyone can do it; you cannot summarize the state
of the art in a few sheets of paper. So what? You cannot summarize the s.o.t.a.
for making beer in a few sheets of paper either. Not good beer, anyway.
You, Mr. Scientist, could not possibly brew a good in a few weeks of practice.
You will note that brewing has been around for all of recorded history, and
that it has been the focus of intense, concerted scientific research for
over 150 years.
 
Contrary to your illusions about how the world works, most jobs and most
products require great skill and practice. Very seldom does something like
the HTSC come along that can be replicated fairly easily by a broad range
of scientists. In areas like pharmacuticals and semiconductors, that *never*
happens. It never has happened, and it never will. If you think that "any
scientist" in the world could make a transistor in 1955, then you do not
known a thing about the history of semiconductors.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /  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, 16 Sep 95 00:19:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>A minor point. Three of the last four ASIC designs I have been involved in
>with this kind of success have been GaAs not Si. Although GaAs IC
>technology has not been in existence since 1950, I would agree it is much
>more of a mature technology than CF.
 
What was the success rate five years after the technology began? More to the
point, what would the success rate have been in the research was starved
for funding, attacked by the A.P.S. and Sci. Am at every turn, and if people
in the U.S. were practically never allowed to publish papers on it? What
would the success rate of ASIC designs be if the Patent Office refused to
grant any patent protection to any corporation for any technology relating
to it? I do not know the details, but I suppose you would not have achieved
50% success rates (as Ed Storms and others have done). Under circumstances
like this, it is a miracle that we are still able to do *any* CF work in the
U.S., with any success rate at all. The situation in Japan and Italy are
much better of course.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 16 Sep 1995 02:00:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <-1409951846210001@ip-salem2-01.teleport.com> ,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
>Not really, Matthew.  I'm just saying that to believe that the solution to
>obtaining controlled fusion lies in and through the expenditure of
>'gigabucks' is an unfounded and illogical assumption.  It is not a fact
>that problems can be solved by throwing a ton of money at them.

No, but it is a fact that the sort of small-scale experimentation which
you describe was done for roughly 30 years in all the major
technologically-advanced nations of the world, and all the
results suggested that small-scale research was not going to
get you to ignition.  There's still that chance that some wild
miraculous inspiration somewhere will save the day, but 
the odds seem pretty remote considering all the work that's
already been done.  Megabucks may not guarantee a solution
but they sure as hell improve the odds.  

The biggest demon in (steady state, plasma-based) fusion 
research is energy transport from the hot interior, where 
the fusion reactions occur, to the cool 
(actually about 10,000 kelvin) edge.  A bare-minimum level of 
transport is virtually guaranteed by diffusion of particles 
(and their energy) through electrical collisions.  Real plasmas
show energy diffusion several orders of magnitude above this
so-called classical level.  Fusion reactions are much less common
than energy-diffusing collisions, so one needs a large device to
reduce diffusive losses enough that the energy source (fusion)
can balance the energy loss (diffusion!), and attain ignition.
But even the minimum level of transport dictates that you need 
devices of a minimum size and cost to get to ignition, and while
you can do research on smaller machines, at some point you need
to ante up and buy a big machine.

There are those who will claim that you can work miracles
with small devices, and I'd certainly be a lot happier with a small
machine, but I just don't see it happening given the ideas that are
out there.  But if anyone has a cool concept and is looking for
a free (fellowship-funded) thesis student with lots of ideas
and enthusiasm, let me know.  Some of my classmates and I
are still making up our minds about our thesis topics.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 16 Sep 1995 06:02:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Mitchell asked for my position on the very specific issue of continuity. 

I actually do believe in continuity in the sense that particles move
through space from one position to another by going through a chain of
intermediate positions. 

I do not believe in the absolute necessity of the conservation of
mass-energy. It might be the case that matter is slowly formed in vacuum
in small quantities in order to maintain the density of the universe in
spite of its expansion. I know of no evidence pro or con.

You seemed to jump to conclusions in your post when you read my
description of the intermediate quantum state preceding electron capture.
I did not intend to plagerize your theory, in fact if you look at my post
dated Aug 28, 1995 under the thread "Marshall Dudley hypothesis revisited"
you will notice that I mention an intermediate quantum state preceeding
electron capture. Quantum mechanics is what I believe to be the physical
reality if there is such a thing. Quantum mechanics allows mixed quantum
states.

I agree with you on that quantum mechanics contradicts our perception of
reality and seems to violate causality but quantum mechanics is still the
observed reality governing the behaviour of elementary particles. I did
tell you very early (as soon as I read your first post on the protoneutron
theory) that I thought your thinking is very close to mine. I don't agree
with you on all counts but it is pretty obivous that electrons mediate
cold fusion reactions. Once you recognize that, it is a very short step to
seeing electron capture as a possibility. I still don't believe that we
have to give up quantum mechanics to embrace the idea of protoneutrons. 

As a matter of fact instead of talking about protoneutrons you could just
say that lots of electrons and protons occupy the same region. 

I cannot accept a classical mechanical picture describing an electron
orbiting a proton at close range.

In a classical picture the electron would just fly by the proton. You
would need some form of friction to slow it down. This could be radiated
energy in the form of photons but the radiation will not happen since
there are no more orbits allowed below the first shell.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /   /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 16 Sep 1995 02:20:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:

>At last a cold fusion advocate has had the guts to make a hypothesis
>that is testable.  Mitchell Jones proposes a mechanism for the Griggs
>phenomenon that produces copius 2.22 MeV gamma rays.  In fact, if you
>track the energy release I believe that almost all the energy will be
>in those gammas.  Now a 10 kW gamma source would be a signal that is
>hard to miss!  Where do those gamma rays go, Mitchell?  Don't tell me
>that they just get absorbed in the water.

Probably the easiest method of detection would be to examine the mean life
of persons standing in the vicinity of the apparatus. Of course, they
wouldn't be standing very long...

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /   /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 16 Sep 1995 02:12:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>I suspect that the dineutron system does not hold together or more
>precisely it holds together but it is susceptible to beta decay. I think
>it might hold together long enough to collide with another d as opposed
to
>another dineutron system. 

The lack of a bound state for the dineutron system has nothing to do with
the weak force (beta decay), it is entirely a strong interaction issue.

>The big question is where the energy comes from that makes electron
>capture possible. I think the fast electrons emitted by the beta decay
may
>be captured by other deuterons. The initial reactions may be initiated by
>cosmic rays, that would explain why the cells turn on at random.

You would need around an MeV to turn the proton into a neutron, then about
another 2 MeV to overcome the binding energy of the deuteron. The cross
section for a 3 MeV electron to be captured by the proton in the deuteron
is a weak interaction process and is unbelievably small. Electron capture
only happens when the electron hangs around a *long* time, as in an atom,
which the highly relativistic 3 MeV electron will not do.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 16 Sep 1995 07:33:40 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <199509151301.JAA31026@pilot04.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu  
(Richard A Blue) writes:
> At last a cold fusion advocate has had the guts to make a hypothesis
> that is testable.  Mitchell Jones proposes a mechanism for the Griggs
> phenomenon that produces copius 2.22 MeV gamma rays.  In fact, if you
> track the energy release I believe that almost all the energy will be
> in those gammas.  Now a 10 kW gamma source would be a signal that is
> hard to miss!  Where do those gamma rays go, Mitchell?  Don't tell me
> that they just get absorbed in the water.
> 
> Dick Blue

I think Griggs would be dead if such a gamma source really
existed, so the theory must be wrong. Next!




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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 14 Sep 1995 18:06:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Pine.OSF.3.90.950914142143.7059D-100000@thunder>
Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk> writes:
[...]
> As to the cancelling of messages by a self-appointed net.cop, I have
> already stated that I do not regard that as correct. However, the urge to
> cancel them was provoked by Pu himself.  Finally, I take it from Pu's post
> that the only cancelled posts were on alt.sci.physics.plutonium, not the
> other groups. 
[...]

They may have been crossposted. But I should point out that
alt.sci.physics.plutonium was EXPRESSLY created for AP's use. Therefore
the articles were about as on topic as possible for that newsgroup...

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 06:29:10 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43adjm$2j4@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> Mitchell Jones writes:
> 
> > ... the theoretical underpinnings of [my] protoneutron theory. 
> > ... I have no "credentials" in physics ....
> 
> 
> ZoltanCC writes:
> 
> > Thank you for your detailed post regarding our cold fusion theories.
> > 
> > I myself do not have credentials of physics
> 
> There seems to be inverse correlation between the amount of
> training in physics one has, and one ability to propose cold
> fusion theories.
> 
> I wonder why.... :-)

***{Us foks out hir inna wuds is just iggerent, Barry. We kint hep it!
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: Questionable Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questionable Calorimetry
Date: 16 Sep 1995 08:45:31 GMT
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <437569$b5m@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:

<text deleted>

>As time goes on, the measurements look more and more like "noise" to
>me.  I have posted many articles noting the specifics of the "noise"
>here.  

According to Jed, some setups produce tritium.  Wouldn't that be far
easier to measure and verify?  If a 'recipe' were disclosed that 
produced tritium, and completely ignored o/u heat claims and finicky
calorimetry, would anyone attempt to replicate it?  

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenparsec cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Arthur TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 16 Sep 1995 09:55:37 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <rburnsDEwMzM.Gso@netcom.com> rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) writes:

> So which is it: are the guys trying to   ridicule the  ball claim
> too gutless [...] or can they just not figure
> out how to place sell orders on IF?

Is that it? Just two choices? How about, I don't get a kick out of
your game so I don't bother? Make it worth my while.
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 07:34:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43am62$52a@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1309950839370001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> > 
> > (2) Since "there ain't nothin in them voids," they collapse as soon as
> > they move to a less turbulent point in the flow. 
> 
> There's not much, but they are filled with vapor.

***{The voids come into existence because the fluid is rotating with such
an enormous velocity that the centrifugal forces overcome the cohesive
forces and tear it apart. This suggests that the contents of the voids are
a virtually perfect vacuum, and are not "filled with vapor." The reason:
the cohesive forces are either overcome by the centrifugal forces, or they
are not. You can't have it both ways. This isn't a situation where you
have a tranquil pool of water with molecules moving in random directions
due to thermal considerations. This is a situation in which virtually all
of the molecules are being hurled outward from a center of rotation. To
repeat: you can't have it both ways here. The molecules are either being
hurled outward from the center, or they aren't. The events are moving too
rapidly for "vapor" to form. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > (3) When a void collapses, the walls crash together at the center,
> > producing momentary giant overpressures. 
> 
> Sure, but how giant? Atomic processing involving the vapor
> trapped in the void, and the non-uniform collapse can limit the 
> strength of the overpressure.

***{No disagreement here, just as long as you realize that "vapor" isn't
going to be much of a factor under these conditions. There will
doubtlessly be a few fragments flying around in the void, but it is most
assuredly *not* an equilibrium pressure situation. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > 
> > (4) In the moment of final collapse, there is a tiny sphere at the center
> > of the former void, where the situation is sufficiently crowded at the
> > microscopic level so that electrons in the lowermost (K) shells of
> > hydrogen atoms do not have room to orbit. 
> 
> As noted, it is extremely unlikely that things remain ideal down
> to this microscopic regime; spherical symmetry and well defined
> phase difference are proabably lost well before the ``tiny sphere''
> reaches molecular dimensions.

***{Of course, I agree. It is an unfortunate limitation of writing that,
when explaining a theory for the first time, one must simplify. Later,
when the generalities have been understood, one can fill in the details
and introduce qualifications. In this particular case, the collapse of
cavitation voids has been photographically studied, and in many cases
asymetries do develop as the collapse progresses. In particular, when
voids are in contact with a metal surface I have seen photographs showing
the sphere developing a tiny depression at the point on its side opposite
to the point of contact with the metal. The depression then becomes a tiny
vortex, which then reaches across to the other side of the void, turning
it into a torus (donut) shape, which then collapses. Nevertheless, at the
end, in all scenarios, opposing sides of the void slam together,
presumably producing giant overpressures. And that is the key point of
interest for present purposes. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> In your theory, all the symetries conspire to give you your desired
> orbit compression, but without exciting myriad other atomic 
> processes first. Most unlikely. Far more likely would be to excite
> the electrons of the most highly compressed gas, and they radiate
> away the extreme overpressure.

***{As noted above, the assumption that the voids are filled with an
equilibrium vapor pressure is clearly false. Because of that, I believe it
is unreasonable to expect a "highly compressed gas" to develop in the
bubble and resist the final stage of collapse. In any case, this is a
testable theory. If the cavitation void region in a Griggs machine
exhibits abnormally high gamma ray absorption when it is producing "excess
heat," or if it exhibits abnormally low gamma ray emissions when, say,
doped with isotopes that normally would produce such emissions, then the
theory is proven. If not, not. (The isotopes, of course, must produce
gammas big enough to convert protoneutrons into neutrons, in order for the
result to be a clear test.) --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

***{By the way, as yet another example of the technological implications
of the protoneutron theory, I would note that if the theory is true then
the Griggs device should produce far more excess heat when the fluid is
being bombarded with sufficiently large gammas, either from isotopes that
have been added to the fluid stream, or from external sources. Indeed, if
it absorbs externally introduced gammas it should be possible to precisely
control the excess heat level by varying the level of such gammas.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Sergio Pomante /  THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 22:52:15 GMT
Organization: Cineca


 Yes, goodbye Quantum Mechanics.

 Albert Einstein was right, a new , more complete, causal , theory is
 born.
 
 This is : The Wave theory of the Field.
 
 It' s available in http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html.

 Some extract....

 MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model show
that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetics interactions are absent,
because are absent the waves that characterize electrical
interactions.This implies a different point of view for the forces in
act.From this different view we can support an original explication
of COLD FUSION.

 Good reading, and ... please, destroy it , if you are be able.

 The author: Walter E.R. Cassani  e-mail : cassani@linux.infosquare.it



     
 SERGIO POMANTE --- Theoretical physics student -- Bologna University (Italy)

  Address: Via Emilia Levante 118, 40139 Bologna                  
  Phone  : 39-51-548778 /39-85-8937016 
  E-mail : pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it 
     WWW : http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html              
                                   

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Euejin Jeong /  Quantum Tunneling Probability
     
Originally-From: ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Tunneling Probability
Date: 16 Sep 1995 13:30:00 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates



Deutrons inside lattice would behave radically different from when they 
are outside of lattice. They are captured in the electrostatic potential 
created by nuclear charges. Probability of fusion increases as time. A 
little bit more of deuterium inside the same potential well would 
increase the chance by the exponential rate. Did anybody calculate this 
problem by manybody collision inside electrostatic potential model ?

Euejin
  
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenejeong cudfnEuejin cudlnJeong cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 /   /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 06:50:52 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <43db36$f0h@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <-1409951846210001@ip-salem2-01.teleport.com> ,
> singtech@teleport.com writes:
> >Not really, Matthew.  I'm just saying that to believe that the solution to
> >obtaining controlled fusion lies in and through the expenditure of
> >'gigabucks' is an unfounded and illogical assumption.  It is not a fact
> >that problems can be solved by throwing a ton of money at them.
> 
> No, but it is a fact that the sort of small-scale experimentation which
> you describe was done for roughly 30 years in all the major
> technologically-advanced nations of the world, and all the
> results suggested that small-scale research was not going to
> get you to ignition.  There's still that chance that some wild
> miraculous inspiration somewhere will save the day, but 
> the odds seem pretty remote considering all the work that's
> already been done.  Megabucks may not guarantee a solution
> but they sure as hell improve the odds.  

That is not what the results indicated at all.  That's what the scientists
would like the legislatures to believe.  Null results for small
experiments do not have a logical connection at all with the possibility
of positive results with larger scale apparatus.  If the approach used by
small scale apparatus (such as was used in Project Sherwood) was in error,
building bigger equipment can't fix the approach.  Hot fusion is not the
ticket.  Get it?  Neither is cold fusion - but rather a completely novel
method to catalyze nuclear reactions is in order.

> The biggest demon in (steady state, plasma-based) fusion 
> research is energy transport from the hot interior, where 
> the fusion reactions occur, to the cool 
> (actually about 10,000 kelvin) edge.  

Wrong.  The biggest demon is ignorance about the nuclear fusion process
itself.  In spite of what you think is true, fusion never occurs as a
result of the energetic collisions between interacting nuclei.  Not even
in a nuclear weapon.  That's right - the weapons designers themselves have
been wrong about how they work.  That's why their energy yield predictions
are very accurate but their particle counts are four orders of magnitude
off (so I've been told by a gov't contractor who audits tests).  I'm
trying to give you a big hint here, Robert, as I have been dropping hints
about this for six months.  No one is listening.

>A bare-minimum level of 
> transport is virtually guaranteed by diffusion of particles 
> (and their energy) through electrical collisions.  Real plasmas
> show energy diffusion several orders of magnitude above this
> so-called classical level.  Fusion reactions are much less common
> than energy-diffusing collisions, so one needs a large device to
> reduce diffusive losses enough that the energy source (fusion)
> can balance the energy loss (diffusion!), and attain ignition.

Right, fusion reactions are not common.  So the ticket is to understand
that fusion is process of ordering between two nuclei.  The implication is
that prior to the fusion event one might expect anticedents states of
greater and greater order between the interacting particles.  This order
does not arise as a result of smacking the fuel nuclei into each other. 
Got the hint yet?

> But even the minimum level of transport dictates that you need 
> devices of a minimum size and cost to get to ignition, and while
> you can do research on smaller machines, at some point you need
> to ante up and buy a big machine.

Bunko.  Wrong thesis leads to wrong approach.

> There are those who will claim that you can work miracles
> with small devices, and I'd certainly be a lot happier with a small
> machine, but I just don't see it happening given the ideas that are
> out there.  But if anyone has a cool concept and is looking for
> a free (fellowship-funded) thesis student with lots of ideas
> and enthusiasm, let me know.  Some of my classmates and I
> are still making up our minds about our thesis topics.

I'm glad you feel that way because it is about to happen.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR  97304

singtech@teleport.com




I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / P Edward /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: "P. Edward Murray" <user@netaxs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 14 Sep 1995 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection

Personally, I would really hope that you would cease and desist! 
This newsgroup is for astronomy, not the babling of a lonely poor soul!

Look, you have your own newsgroup...use it!

A concerned amateur astronomer.

Ed Murray
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenuser cudfnP cudlnEdward cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / 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: Sat, 16 Sep 95 14:46:13 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <43acda$28c@soenews.ucsd.edu>,
   barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>In article <438470$6ro_002@ip029.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)  
>writes:
>
>> >I permitted him to become
>> >symbolic of every unyielding, illogical, blockheaded post which you guys
>> >have hurled my way in the past few months, 
>
>I'm glad to see you're now beyond blanket criticism of
>those about whom who know little....
>
>> >The moral of the story is simple: people must be judged, and dealt with,
>> >as individuals, rather than as representatives of amorphous collectives
>> >*but such a standard, in this group, is very hard to meet.* 
>
>Well, I realize that I'm a blockheaded, stubborn, impervious
>to reason wefare-queen-in-a-white-coat, and so my opinion
>is of diminished importance, but I might suggest that you
>simply avoid namecalling, flaming, etc. If you get that upset about
>things you read on a newsgroup, you really need to develop 
>more of a life.
>


For the record, I did not write the statements misattributed to me above. 

Please be more careful with attributions.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 16 Sep 1995 00:26:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <-1409952033540001@ip-salem2-01.teleport.com> 
> That way the
> people who invest in Singularity Technologies Inc. new process have the
> option of saying yes or no - unlike the average taxpayer who can say very
> little.
> 
> -- 
> Charles Cagle
> Singularity Technologies, Inc.
> 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
> Salem, OR  97304
> 

Perhaps if you would provide some clear demonstration that you
have any technology of value, people would invest in your company.
You are developing something of a crank reputation on the Internet, 
for dwelling in the sci groups, making oblique references to 
your own theories of physics that show how to make new energy sources,
and that show existing nuclear physics is misguided, but nver offering
and clear supporting evidence, references, etc.

I would be your biggest supporter if you could point to a reference
that clearly demosntrates a misunderstanding in modern nuclear physics.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 15 Sep 1995 17:54:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I suspect that the dineutron system does not hold together or more
precisely it holds together but it is susceptible to beta decay. I think
it might hold together long enough to collide with another d as opposed to
another dineutron system. 

The big question is where the energy comes from that makes electron
capture possible. I think the fast electrons emitted by the beta decay may
be captured by other deuterons. The initial reactions may be initiated by
cosmic rays, that would explain why the cells turn on at random.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:17:01 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Norman Yarvin (yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU) wrote:
: Unfortunately it isn't real money.  Darn anti-gambling laws :-).  It'd
: be rather nice to be able to deprive rabid fusion zealots of their
: money.

Norman, a man's reputation is worth money.  Courts award money for 
damages to reputations all the time.  The scoring system in the IF
exchange isn't perfect but it provides some indication of your
ability to predict opinion trends if nothing else.

: Of course 5% interest for 10 years is a lot less than my bank pays me.
: My bank is likely to actually pay the money, too. :-)

You can enjoy some increased stature via your prediction scores if you 
word the claims carefully.

Since I am what you would call a "fusion zealot" I challenge you to come 
up with wording in the IF exchange for a claim that will sucker me in, 
and take my credibility -- there are many others like me, of course.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 17:13:48 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <43a4ec$mok@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> I really hate it when this happens.
> 
> My post here was truncated and the other 2 pages or so that I typed were
> lost. Even I don't have a copy of it here and so I cannot repost. I will
> try to recreate the essence of it here:
> 
> By proposing the "protoneutron theory" Mitchell embraces the idea of
> intermediary orbits of an electron around the d or p nucleus. My
> understanding is that electrons in any such intermediate or irregularly
> shaped orbit would radiate and that is the reason why such orbits do not
> exist. 

***{Inch by inch, Zoltan, you continue to edge toward my position.
Congratulations! Here, you abandon quantum mechanics in favor of classical
mechanics, by openly admitting the existence of the unstable, classical
orbits that I have been discussing. And, yes, they are unstable because
they radiate. The result is that an electron which is forced to remain
inside the innermost Bohr orbits "will spiral down toward the nucleus,
where it will
linger at grazing altitude in a particle form which we may term a
*protoneutron.*" [Quoted from my original post on the protoneutron
theory.] I await an explicit statement on your part that you now embrace
the protoneutron theory! --Mitchell Jones}***

The behaviour of the quantum mechanical wave function ensures not
> only that no radiation is emitted from standard orbits, but also a kind of
> predictive ability, whereby the electron knows ahead of time whether there
> is an available free orbit below it and will not begin to fall to a lower
> orbit unless one is available. 

***{Woops, there you go again! I guess you want to have it both ways.
Therefore I must note that there is no such thing as a "quantum mechanical
wave function." The wave function is merely a mathematical construct,
curve fitted to the experimental data by mathematical physicists. As noted
in an earlier post, mathematical formulations have no philosophy, and
don't give a hoot in hell how they are "interpreted." Bottom line: the
entire mathematical structure of contemporary physics is available to
*all* theoretical physicists, not merely to the high priests of "quantum
mechanics," who believe that entities routinely leap into existence out of
nothing and vanish into nothing. 

By the way, Zoltan: I have responded point-by-point to your postings,
raising various concrete objections to them, which you have ignored. One
of the things you ignored was my explicit question regarding whether you
do or do not believe that violations of the principle of continuity are
possible. Therefore, since you are openly shifting, from paragraph to
paragraph, between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, I will once
again ask you to declare yourself: do you believe that it is possible for
entities to leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, or
not? You  can't have it both ways. It's either classical mechanics, or
quantum mechanics, and you have to choose. Reality, like the Moon, is a
harsh mistress! --Mitchell Jones}***

Proposing a classical picture here only
> reduces the credibility of Mitchell's theory.

***{Wrong again. Proposing a classical picture indicates that I am making
an honest attempt to understand reality, rather than an attempt to curry
favor with the powers-that-be within the academic physics community. The
reason I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, Zoltan, is simple: facts, and
reality, matter to me. I do not have a pliable mind, and I do not soak up
whatever nonsense happens to be the dominant fad-of-the-moment within
academic physics. My opinion, at a given moment, is the conclusion of the
strongest argument I know relative to an issue. Period. I don't give a
hoot in hell whether it is what a professor wants to hear or not. Needless
to say, that is not a "scholastically efficient" attitude for a student to
take! Nor is it an expedient way to present a theory. To gain acceptance
from the powers-that-be, the norm is to kiss a few behinds by couching the
new theory in fashionable terms. But I reject that. Indeed, *I spit on
such an approach.* "Quantum mechanics" is a rotting corpse, and it has
been propped on its feet by fear long enough. The time has come to
dispense with its mind-numbing absurdities and begin to openly, and
proudly, do real physics again. --Mitchell Jones}***

On the other hand if we
> simply assume freely moving electrons in the valence band flying towards
> and away from the deuteron one can think of such a system as if it were a
> "protoneutron", it does not matter that it is not always the same electron
> as long as there is always one or more around.

***{Here, you misconstrue the protoneutron theory. I never said that "it
is always the same electron." In fact, I explicitly characterized the
protoneutron as "wildly unstable." What this means is that the electron,
after spiraling down to grazing altitude through the inner, classical
orbits, lingers at "grazing altitude" only so long as the atomic system
remains isolated. If it experiences a collision, say, with an electron, a
proton, or with a rapidly moving magnetic flux line, disruption of this
wildly unstable situation can occur. Since the probability of an electron
or proton collision is low due to the neutral charge of the protoneutron,
and since flux line collisions occur mainly when a protoneutron intersects
the shell of a lattice atom or of an atom trapped within the lattice, it
follows that, for practical purposes, thermal protoneutrons are only
disrupted by collision with electron shells. Thus the protoneutron exists
from the instant of its formation until the instant of its first collision
with the outer electron shell of an atom. At that point, it acquires some
energy. If its electron acquires escape velocity, then the protoneutron
may be disrupted; if not, then its electron will once again be forced out
of the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits by lack of space, and it will radiate the
acquired energy as it passes through the classical inner orbits, spiraling
back down to grazing altitude. Bottom line: protoneutrons don't endure
forever. I have said repeatedly that they are wildly unstable, and they
are. Nevertheless, in the conditions of a loaded palladium lattice, they
do, in fact, exist; and the fact that they exist is the key to
understanding "cold fusion." --Mitchell Jones}***
 > 
> To summarize my view of our various theories:
> 
> 0. We need to explain the mechanism by which the deuterons' repulsion is
> overcome and we need to explain why normally experienced radiation is not
> emitted. We have a soup of:    Pd, Li, p, d, e and possibly contaminants.
> 
> 1. Fusion could only happen if either there are thermal neutrons in the
> soup or some deuterons don't have electron shells.

***{Zoltan, haven't you heard a word I've been saying? I keep telling you
that, by my theory, this isn't fusion, and you keep nattering on as if my
words have no meaning. In the above, you refer to "our" theories, by which
you presumably include Marshall's, your "electron capture" variant of
Marshall's theory, and my protoneutron theory, but then, when you continue
to try to explain how fusion could happen, you obviously aren't talking
about my theory at all. To repeat, for the umpteenth time: according to
the protoneutron theory, "cold fusion" ain't fusion! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 2. Thermal neutrons are initially not present but could be created by
> cosmic radiation and amplified later, or they could be created by some of
> the fusion reactions and later serve to increase the reaction rates. 

***{See above. --MJ}***

An
> example would be the reaction when a high energy particle hits a Li7
> nucleus. Thermal neutrons can result from such a reaction.
> 
> 3. If there are no thermal neutrons (initial state), a fusion reaction can
> conceivably be caused by an electron getting caught between two
> approaching deuterons, as long as the deuterons do not have electron
> shells.

***{See above. --MJ}*** 
> 
> Marshall proposed that the deuterons do not have their own electron shells
> but instead they are embedded into the shells of the Pd ions. (Marshall
> Dudley hypothesis) If fusion happens under these conditions, the electrons
> in the shells might contribute to deexcitation of the He4* without neutron
> emission.

***{See above. --MJ}***
> 
> I proposed a variant of this (The Electron Capture Theory of Cold Fusion).
> I do not worry about how it happens that naked (no electron shell)
> deuterons collide with electrons, but I propose that when this happens a
> short lived quantum state is created which could be described in terms of
> partial electron capture. 

***{*You* propose it? What are you going to call it: a "quantum mechanical
protoneutron?" Get real, Zoltan! Do you really think you can simply pick
up the central concept of my theory, package it under a "quantum
mechanical" label, and take credit for it? Jeeze! (By the way: even if
such a ploy were to play well in academia--my formulation of the theory
sure as hell isn't going to!--you should beware: I proposed an
experimental test of the theory. Since those experiments haven't been done
yet, my theory is unproven. Don't you think you should wait until the
results are in before you attach yourself to it? --Mitchell Jones}***

 Since electron capture would require 0.78 MeV
> energy, it cannot completely happen unless there is another deuteron
> nearby. If there is another deuteron around, the electron capture will
> happen using borrowed energy

***{Here, as I noted in my previous response to you--which you
ignored--you reverse causality: the energy has to be available *first.*
Energy can't be borrowed from the future. Nothing in the energy borrowing
that occurs in electromagnetics involves time travel! *Why do you keep
ignoring me, when I post an objection to one of your absurd statements?*
Are you trying to drive me crazy? --Mitchell Jones}***

, a neutrino is emitted and the electrostatic
> repulsion of the other deuteron is eliminated. The two nuclei fuse and the
> borrowed energy is returned to the quantum fluctuations where it came
> from. 

***{I repeat: you reverse causality. Attempting to hide behind the arcane
mumbo-jumbo of "quantum mechanics" will not save your statement, because,
as I have noted above, the rotting corpse of "quantum mechanics" has been
propped on its feet long enough. The dark age of fear and intimidation in
physics is ending. The future is coming at us like a runaway freight
train, and,  in that future, it will be possible to do real physics
again.  So you have a simple choice: you can stand in front of the train
and be flattened by it, or you can step aside. --Mitchell Jones}***

<more of same snipped>

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / A Anderson /  Cyberspace problems
     
Originally-From: Alexander Anderson <sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cyberspace problems
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 23:18:32 GMT
Organization: ALMA Services

Dear Sean Rodden,




    "Algorithm"


    That word gives me _nightmares_.


    I'm a digital optician at Tritium.  Reading your mail off the CSTT 
this morning vividly reminded me of the time when the entire Mars grid 
went down.  I'll never forget that moment.  We were being de-briefed by 
Hal at Tritium, after the Friday mid-evening surge, and I was just about 
to sip on a well-earned Java espresso.  


    Due to a nearby late-night Afro-rock rave, the pre-beta neural 
controller at the Olympus Mons plant suddenly went quasi-periodic, 
snapping the entire grid into nervousness.  Laplace soliflucting, and 
then masing in sympathy with the 3 K cosmic background, power to the 
entire red planet went into flameout --Tokamak Deadlock.


    Scalding espresso coffee splash down my shirt, I remember, as the 
main lights flickered off. The next eighteen hours were the most 
frightening, desperate, sweaty hours we ever lived through. 


    Please don't mention that word again!




Sandy
-- 
// Alexander Anderson                         Computer Science Student //
// Home Fone    : +44 (0) 171-794-4543            Middlesex University //
// Home Email   : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk                Bounds Green //
// College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk                          London //
//                                                                  UK //


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 20:40:48 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>Now, Jed.  You have held up the Griggs gadget and the Potapov device as CF
>examples.  Where in either of these devices are there loading, onset
>current density, performance and material characteristics or nuclear ash?
 
I have not! I have NEVER said that the Griggs Gadget or the Potapov device
runs on CF. I have repeatedly stated that I have seen no evidence for that,
and I have no idea what they run on. I stated that explicitly in every
formal paper I have written about them including the ICCF5 Review I posted
here.
 
Why are "skeptics" so incapable of reading things? Clearly you have no idea
what I have said because you have never bothered to read anything that I
have written -- or that Griggs or Potapov has written. You always get it
wrong. Now you put words in my mouth that I would never have said in a hundred
years.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:25:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Zoltan Szakaly informs us that:

<< I suspect that the dineutron system does not hold together or   >>
<< more precisely it holds together but is susceptable to beta decay. >>
<< I think it might hold together long enough to collide with another >>
<< deuteron as opposed to another dineutron system.                   >>

Zoltan, May I suggest that what you "suspect" or "think" carries little
weight when it is contradicted by established experimental facts.  You
do consider significant facts in putting together your theories don't
you?  Why don't you show us a little calculation in which to use your
estimates of the dineutron lifetime, density, velocity, etc. to come up
with an expected collision rate for the processes you propose?  Of course
the more dineutrons you have in your model system the more difficult it
becomes to find the energy you concede is needed to make them in the first
place.  Also getting all those betas to go just where and when they are
needed without making their presence known is a bit tricky, I think.

Well, when you get a few of these difficulties worked out please let us
know.  Meanwhile don't give up you day job, as they say in reference to
wouldbe comedians.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: 16 Sep 1995 02:14:13 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <RPAA1-P.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
>  
> >This is what is missing from CF---a configuration that is
> >sufficietly well defined and simple for direct replication
> >at other labs, like the ``recipe'' for HiTC superconductors
> >+ verification via the Meissner effect.
>  
> Fine. Great. A simple recipe that anyone can follow. Okay, but first
> you give me a recipe for a hot fusion reactor. 
> <Ahem> All I am doing is holding you, Barry, to the same ridiculous standard
> you just established for CF. You know nothing about CF. You have not read
> any papers, attended any conferences, or talked to any of the experts. For
> all you know, manufacturing a CF could be as difficult as manufacturing
> a 16 megabit memory chip or scanning electron microscope.
>  
> - Jed

Jed, you are the one who said that CF has a status comparable
to Hi TC superconductors. I said it does not, because no simple
receipe has been provided for CF, but has long been available 
for HiTC. All you are doing above is agreeing with me---CF does
not have the same status, precisely because it is far less
reproducible, as you confirm.

I don't insist that CF *ever* have a simple recipe. But
this has to be regarded as a deficit in CF research, a barrier
to acceptance, and will continue to hinder wider acceptance until 
it is overcome.


By the way, can you repost your CF reference list, I don't
seem to have it saved.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 / Richard Blue /  Bashing QM
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bashing QM
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:05:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So Mitchell Jones joins the long line of people with serious
hangups about quantum mechanics.  For them all goodness, truth, and
beauty reside with good old classical mechanics while that new
fangled quantum mechanics is just "mumbo-jumbo."

I suspect, however, that Mitchell does no better than others like him
in demostrating that he can even put forward an argument the is
logically correct with respect to the classical physics to which he
claims allegiance.

Whenever you start talking about "squeezing", hindered motion, and
special positioning on the atomic atomic scale, the classical approach
does require that you show numerical details as to where the various
parties to an interaction are at any given stage in the process.  If
you are depending on random occurances we still need estimates for
various probablities.  We need average lifetimes, average velocities,
density distributions, etc.  Using classical mechanics does not make
it any easier to fit all the various pieces of the puzzle together.
I suspect it may even make it much more difficult to construct a theory.

Generally those who resort to classical mechanics in order to avoid
the "mumbo-jumbo" of quantum mechanics have to resort to mumbo-jumbo
of a different kind.  They can never move their thinking beyond mere
handwaving.  It becomes what I consider a form of "let's pretend."
That involves such notions as, "Let's pretend this deuteron sits
here perfectly still while I mash another deuteron onto it with this
big masher."  Of course it is all to be done in accord with the laws of
classical physics, it it not?

Of course classical physics does involve strict conservation of energy
and of momentum.  If your picture of an atom involves little tiny electrons
orbiting a nucleus it still must be true that the repositioning of some of
the charged particles requires that they all change position, right?
Things should be positioned at some sort of energy minimum.  Now if you
recall that tunnelling is not allowed in classical physics you have
put a serious damper on the very reaction processes you seek to invoke.
We need that QM mumbo-jumbo to keep the wheels of industry turning.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 20:04:24 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

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

>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>At this point you may be thinking we only accomplished this with a
>>handfull of parts on the wafer. However, this is not the case. Yeilds have
>>been in excess of 90%. Basically, if the part was functioning it performed
>>as expected. Loss of parts was basically limited to handling damage etc.
> 
>That is pretty good. 90%+ is very good. With CF, only IMRA can guarantee
>90%+ performance. Others get 50% or so. Of course, you are talking about a
>mature technology that has been intensely researched since the early 1950s.
>Fifteen years after the beginning of the silicon revolution, a new part
>would not have given you a 90% success rate, it would have *failed* 90%
>of the time. Five years after the beginning, ordinary production runs often
>produced 95% failures.
> 

A minor point. Three of the last four ASIC designs I have been involved in
with this kind of success have been GaAs not Si. Although GaAs IC
technology has not been in existence since 1950, I would agree it is much
more of a mature technology than CF.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.14 / Ben Bullock /  cmsg cancel <438hv4$7k@keknews.kek.jp>
     
Originally-From: ben@theory3.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: cmsg cancel <438hv4$7k@keknews.kek.jp>
Date: 14 Sep 1995 06:56:18 GMT
Organization: KEK , Tsukuba , Japan

Article cancelled from within tin v1.1 PL6
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenben cudfnBen cudlnBullock cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Bill Rowe /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 20:14:44 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

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

>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>I, for one, would like to see a working definition for CF posted. As near
>>as I can tell from posting and reading various articles, CF is
>>characterized by more heat output than can be explained by conventional
>>physics without invoking the assumption of fusion. There may or may not be
> 
>And how near can you tell anything from posting and reading various articles?
>Or do you mean actual scientific articles in the literature. The articles
>here will not help you.
> 
>In any case . . . okay, what conventional physics do you have in mind here?
>Get specific, please. Please tell us what kind of conventional physics will
>allow a 10 gram sample of metal with no source of chemical fuel to produce,
>say, 200 megajoules of energy? In many CF experiments, if the entire
>calorimeter: cell, electrolyte, pipes, pumps and all was made of coal and
>you burned the entire machine you would not get more than a small fraction of
>the total energy that these experiments produce. In short, tell us what
>conventional phyiscs would allow a match to burn for a week without consuming
>the wood or match head.
> 
>Go ahead! The ball is in your court. Tell us about the conventional physics
>that allow ten-thousand times more energy from chemical fuel than gasoline.
>And also -- while you are at it -- explain how these processes also generate
>tritium and helium. I look forward to your response, although I doubt it
>will get any of us nearer to telling anything about CF.

I have not stated I could explain CF phenomena with convential physics.
Again, as far as I have been able to determine the only commonality to all
CF experiments is "excess" heat. Neutrons, tritium and helium are
sometimes detected and sometimes not. In addition, Dick Blue, Richard
Shultz and others have pointed out what I believe are serious questions
regarding the test methods used to detect neutrons, tritium and helium.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Bill Rowe /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 20:25:00 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

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

>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>Jed has repeatably asserted calorimetry alone is sufficient to show the
>>existance of CF. This would imply the only characteristic common to all CF
>>experiments is excess heat. Is this then the working definition?
> 
>That is absurd. There is NO SUCH implication!!! Who told you that the only
>characteristic common to all CF experiments is excess heat? Or did you just
>make it up? That is preposterous. What about loading, onset current density,
>performance and material charactoristics, and nuclear products like helium
>which has been seen in every exeriment where people have looked with
>sufficient care.
> 

You have asserted calorimetry is sufficient to show CF haven't you? In
fact, earlier in this thread you took exception to my statement
calorimetry is not sufficient to show fusion by making such a statement.
If calorimetry is sufficient, why isn't shouldn't CF be defined as the
observation of "excess" heat? If the observation of "excess" heat is not
sufficient to define CF, what other properties of CF need to be included?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: For lunatic eyes only: the Straw Horse Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For lunatic eyes only: the Straw Horse Hypothesis
Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:54:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I think your eyes had to be truly lunatic to come up with this hypothesis
Horace.

Quantum mechanical tunneling the way you described it would violate the
conservation of energy and so will not happen. Unless I missed something.
Tunneling happens to a new location with equal potential through some
energy barrier which would make the transition impossible under the laws
of classical mechanics.

If I misunderstood something please elaborate.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:54:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thank you Barry for your witty remark about our educational backgrounds.

It is totally preposterous to assume that the cavitation in the Griggs
device would compress the hydrogen orbital at all. Even if things were
ideal and totally symmetric the Oxygen orbitals would tend to be more
compressible since they are higher orbits. Now we all know how
compressible water is don't we?

On the other hand in water we do have hydrogen embedded in the electron
shells of Oxygen and this should get Marshall highly excited about heavy
water. 

I think somebody should try to run the Griggs device with heavy water. I
think gammas and Tritium will come out.

Marshall earlier disagreed with my thinking about water I wonder what he
thinks now?

I think water (D2O) is ideal for testing the Marshall Dudley hypothesis.

Normally in water the two hydrogen occupy a constant position somewhat far
from each other but not on opposit ends of the O atom. Perhaps something
in the Griggs device disrupts this arrangement and allows the to Ds to
meet.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 15 Sep 1995 08:36:50 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <21cenlogic-1309951432430001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>In article <436rc5$fo0@wu.cse.tek.com>, arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie
>Frisch) wrote:
>
>> In article <pLGgkV7.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 .......
 ....
 ..
>> >I gathered from this informal conversation that HTSC work about as well as
>> >CF cathodes. You can make most of them work, maybe half or two-thirds, but
>> >you never know how well they will work or how strong the effect will be,
>> >or exactly where the cut-off temperature is. Perhaps they have improved by
>> >now.
.. 
.. 
>> Again, you are all wet!
>> 
>> HTSC devices not only are uniformly accepted as fact, they are actually
>> made and sold as products!  They fly in satellites.  They do useful
>> things.
..
..
>***{Arnold, you are the one who is all wet. In the factory, the devices
>are tested and sorted into categories depending upon current carrying
>capacity, etc. Bad ones--and there are plenty--are sorted into the trash.
>Next, the good devices are labeled, packaged, and offered for sale. At
>that point, individual devices are reliable: you know how each one will
>perform, because it has been measured, and its performance categories are
>noted on the package. That, however, does nothing to undercut Jed's
>statement: he was obviously talking about the predictability of the
>manufacturing process itself.



You have just succeeded - unintentionally of course - in accurately
describing what happens when the average state of the art integrated
circuit is manufactured.  Because yields are low, it has to be
qualified before it can be assumed good, and that process is
complicated and expensive.  Many integrated circuits are, in fact,
repaired by laser - through the replacement of bad circuits with good
ones.  Companies exist largely to make the equipment for performing
these repairs.

So I am not all wet, the process described results in accepted salable
products - in fact, it's a large part of the 50 billion dollar
semiconductor business.

But it's clear that you have relatively little knowledge of such
things.  You don't seem to have much real knowledge about anything!

I repeat, where is Pons' and Fleischmanns' water heater?

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Prasad Ramon /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:26:17 GMT
Organization: -- None --

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A.Blue) wrote:

>Ramon Prasad makes some rather wild suggestions concerning the
>behavior of nuclear systems of two or more neutrons.
Yes!

>He speaks of neutrons "drifting slowly apart"
What I meant to say was that if a deuteron is held at a point
in the lattice by atomic forces undergoes an electron capture
process, it becomes a neutral object, and will then slowly drift
away from that point in the lattice because there are no atomic 
(electronic) forces acting on it.

>How long do the neutrons remain within the range of the nuclear
>interaction?
I don't know. My surmise was that, as a deuteron is a stable 
object, charge independence of nuclear forces would suggest
that the dineutron is also stable. But I don't know this.

>Do you have any evidence to suggest that the lifetime of the 
>dineutron is long enough to be of interest in this discussion?
No. My surmise is that it is stable for long enough to allow an 


                                                             

-- 
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden530 cudfnPrasad cudlnRamon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Prasad Ramon /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:40:15 GMT
Organization: -- None --

Continuation of reply to blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A.Blue)

My surmise is that it is stable for long enough to encounter 
another dineutron and bind together with it:

              2n + 2n --> 4n

Once this has been formed a single beta decay of one of the
four neurtons would produce H(4) (impossible) so it ejects
a neutron as well to give a triton:

              4n --> T + e(-) + nu + n

A double beta decay of two neutrons would produce an alpha

              4n --> alpha + 2e(-) + 2nu

I said that this was a speculation. It has some merit: it does
not jump over Coulomb barriers, it gives the right nuclear 
products (helium and tritium) and it would give up kinetic energy 
to the lattice as heat.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437@compuserve.com>

-- 
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden530 cudfnPrasad cudlnRamon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 14:21:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>I, for one, would like to see a working definition for CF posted. As near
>as I can tell from posting and reading various articles, CF is
>characterized by more heat output than can be explained by conventional
>physics without invoking the assumption of fusion. There may or may not be
 
And how near can you tell anything from posting and reading various articles?
Or do you mean actual scientific articles in the literature. The articles
here will not help you.
 
In any case . . . okay, what conventional physics do you have in mind here?
Get specific, please. Please tell us what kind of conventional physics will
allow a 10 gram sample of metal with no source of chemical fuel to produce,
say, 200 megajoules of energy? In many CF experiments, if the entire
calorimeter: cell, electrolyte, pipes, pumps and all was made of coal and
you burned the entire machine you would not get more than a small fraction of
the total energy that these experiments produce. In short, tell us what
conventional phyiscs would allow a match to burn for a week without consuming
the wood or match head.
 
Go ahead! The ball is in your court. Tell us about the conventional physics
that allow ten-thousand times more energy from chemical fuel than gasoline.
And also -- while you are at it -- explain how these processes also generate
tritium and helium. I look forward to your response, although I doubt it
will get any of us nearer to telling anything about CF.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 14:30:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Jed has repeatably asserted calorimetry alone is sufficient to show the
>existance of CF. This would imply the only characteristic common to all CF
>experiments is excess heat. Is this then the working definition?
 
That is absurd. There is NO SUCH implication!!! Who told you that the only
characteristic common to all CF experiments is excess heat? Or did you just
make it up? That is preposterous. What about loading, onset current density,
performance and material charactoristics, and nuclear products like helium
which has been seen in every exeriment where people have looked with
sufficient care.
 
The reason you believe in such preposterous "implications" is simple. You have
not read the literature so you don't have any idea what is common to the
experiments. You are *guessing* instead of doing science. It is a waste of
time.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  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: Fri, 15 Sep 95 14:34:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>At this point you may be thinking we only accomplished this with a
>handfull of parts on the wafer. However, this is not the case. Yeilds have
>been in excess of 90%. Basically, if the part was functioning it performed
>as expected. Loss of parts was basically limited to handling damage etc.
 
That is pretty good. 90%+ is very good. With CF, only IMRA can guarantee
90%+ performance. Others get 50% or so. Of course, you are talking about a
mature technology that has been intensely researched since the early 1950s.
Fifteen years after the beginning of the silicon revolution, a new part
would not have given you a 90% success rate, it would have *failed* 90%
of the time. Five years after the beginning, ordinary production runs often
produced 95% failures.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: 15 Sep 1995 19:13:29 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

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

> Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
>  
> >Jed has repeatably asserted calorimetry alone is sufficient to show the
> >existance of CF. This would imply the only characteristic common to all CF
> >experiments is excess heat. Is this then the working definition?
>  
> That is absurd. There is NO SUCH implication!!! Who told you that the only
> characteristic common to all CF experiments is excess heat? Or did you just
> make it up? That is preposterous. What about loading, onset current density,
> performance and material charactoristics, and nuclear products like helium
> which has been seen in every exeriment where people have looked with
> sufficient care.
>  

Now, Jed.  You have held up the Griggs gadget and the Potapov device as CF
examples.  Where in either of these devices are there loading, onset
current density, performance and material characteristics or nuclear ash?

> The reason you believe in such preposterous "implications" is simple. You have
> not read the literature so you don't have any idea what is common to the
> experiments. You are *guessing* instead of doing science. It is a waste of
> time.
>  

This argument is getting stale. Please stop disallowing those who have not
read your approved list of literature from having an opinion.  It might be
said by your detractors that you've not read the relevant literature
either, as you've often stated you don't follow the physics involved.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 /  Nahum /  Test & Measurements World magazine TOC at TechExpo
     
Originally-From: Nahum <oksi@cerfnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test & Measurements World magazine TOC at TechExpo
Date: 17 Sep 1995 06:47:52 GMT
Organization: Opto-Knowledge Systems, Inc.

The current issue table of contents for Test & Measurement World is now 
posted at TechExpo at URL:
http://www.techexpo.com/
Other magazines are  posted as well.

TechExpo also posts a calendar of science, engineering and technology 
conferences.  The most comprehensive list on the Internet.  
Regards,

Nahum Gat, Ph.D.
oksi@cerfnet.com
   or
nahum@techexpo.com

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenoksi cudlnNahum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.15 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Creation of an Academy of Sciences in Quebec
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Creation of an Academy of Sciences in Quebec
Date: 15 Sep 1995 17:34:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Charactristic of the French Canadians to post in French into a newsgroup
that has been exclusively in English. 

Wake up guys, the rest of the continent speaks english.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Bruce TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 16 Sep 1995 16:24:26 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Randall J. Burns (rburns@netcom.com) wrote:

: So far, all I see watching the Information Futures exchange is very
: few bets against ball. All you need to do is put your reputation on the
: line in a somewhat objective way(assuming you have the technical 
: prowess to get through the interface).  [...]

Jim Bowery already explained why the maximum win you get by simply
buying "no" shares is minimal.

So how about you?  I want to wait until other people bid it up before I
buy those (much cheaper) "no" shares.  So how about it... how many "yes"
shares are you going to buy?  Are you willing to try to bid it up out of
that 5-10 range all by yourself?

The other thing is that I simply don't have the time to play at the IFE
week after week, which I would have to do in order to do well with a
minimal margin like 5.

--
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:
cuddy16 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update September 16, 1995
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update September 16, 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 12:20:21 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (September 15, 1995):

Since the last update on August 24th further experiments and analysis of
the Enhanced Reverse Mode (ERS) regime has been performed on TFTR and a
large L-mode campaign in DT for ITER R&D needs has been carried out.

Experiments during the week of 21-25 August explored various aspects of the
Enhanced Reversed Shear (ERS) mode and measured in-situ calibrations for
the DT neutron collimator (including the two new channels) and MSE systems.
The ERS experiments used a short high-power phase of 0.4 seconds to
transition into the regime, and then reduced the beam power to avoid
disruptions due to the time-evolving q_min.  This strategy produced plasmas
with beta-normal of  ~ 2. and q_min >2 without encountering any
disruptions. After the transition to the ERS mode,  a NB power of 5 MW was
sufficient to sustain a central density of ~ 1 x E20 m-3.

Tritium gas puffs were used to perturbatively measure the hydrogenic
transport in reversed shear  plasmas in both ERS and non-ERS states.  The
tritium evolution in the ERS plasmas is clearly slower than in the non-ERS
plasmas.  Preliminary zero-dimensional analysis indicates that the central
tritium density in the ERS plasma continues to rise for at least ~0.4 sec,
while previous measurements in supershots observed the tritium density
decaying after ~0.1sec.  Measurements in non-ERS reversed shear plasmas
looked similar to the supershot measurements.  Detailed analysis of these
perturbation experiments is in progress.

Initial experiments using tritium-NBI in ERS plasmas were also performed.
Transitions to ERS were obtained with both two or four NB sources (out of
12) operated in tritium.  In contrast with previous supershot experiments,
the very preliminary analysis indicates that the reversed shear plasmas (both
ERS and non-ERS) might not show a strong isotope effect on confinement.

L-MODE CAMPAIGN
__________________

Studies of the isotope effect on energy and particle confinement in L-mode
plasmas were started the week of August 28 during a two week campaign. The
isotope effect was studied in ohmic plasmas, beam-heated plasmas (Do -> D+
vs To -> T+) , RF-heated plasmas, using the hydrogen-minority regime and
second harmonic tritium.

DEUTERIUM AND TRITIUM NBI EXPERIMENTS IN L-MODE

The beam-heated experiment essentially consists of a power scan at constant
density, R = 2.52 m, a = 0.87 m, Bt = 4.8 Tesla, Ip = 2.3 MA, qcyl=3.1,
qpsi=3.9,  ne = 3.5-6.E19, Teo < 6 keV.  Gas puffing in density feedback
mode was used to maintain constant density as the power was varied on
successive shots.  Several dozen deuterium L-mode shots were obtained with
complete transport documentation with power levels ranging from 4 to 22 MW
of heating power.  These deuterium plasmas have all of the usual L-mode
characteristics:

        o  High levels of hydrogenic influx from the limiter.
        o  Broad density profiles.
        o  Global energy confinement times within 20% of Goldston L-mode
scaling.

An ohmic density scan was conducted over the range Nel = 3-9 x 10^19 m^-2
in deuterium and 3-6 x 10^19 m^-2 in the nominal tritium plasmas, at
R=2.52,  4.8 Tesla, 2.3 MA.  Preliminary analysis shows no difference in
the energy confinement time inferred from magnetic measurements between
deuterium  and deuterium-tritium ohmic discharges..

A total of 17 beam-heated tritium L-mode plasmas [ To -> (T+ + D+) ]
plasmas were produced.  Conditions were similar to the deuterium baseline
shots described above.  Helium was puffed into several tritium plasmas with
7 and 13 MW of beam power to study isotope scaling of electron and helium
particle transport.  Density fluctuations were measured in several
discharges by the Beam Emission Spectroscopy (BES) diagnostic.
Fluctuations in a tritium ohmic density scan were measured by microwave
reflectometry.  Tritium retention was studied by comparing the tritium
influx and efflux from the TFTR vacuum vessel.

The tritium concentration  in beam-heated plasmas was approximately
~30-35% at the plasma edge (measured spectroscopically), and ~40-50% at the
plasma center, as inferred from the magnitude of DT neutron emission.

Preliminary analysis indicates a stronger isotope effect on global energy
confinement than had been expected on the basis of previous comparisons of
hydrogen to deuterium L-mode plasmas.  Global taueE in the tritium plasmas
was 10-30% higher than comparable deuterium plasmas, despite the modest
tritium concentrations achieved in the nominally tritium plasmas.
There appears to be no significant differences in the shape of the electron
density profile and Zeff between deuterium and tritium L-mode plasmas.

Local transport analysis based on measurements of the electron density
profile, and the ion and electron temperature profile suggests that the
high-power tritium plasma experiences a real improvement in thermal energy
confinement, rather than simply a change in the beam stored energy due to
differences in the slowing down rate between deuterium and tritium beam
ions.  The change in  stored energy appears to be concentrated in the ions
rather than in the  electrons [similar to the relative strength of the
isotope effect seen in supershot plasmas].  There are modest differences in
the beam deposition profile (with T-NBI being slightly less centrally
peaked than D-NBI), and in the fraction of beam power which is deposited to
thermal ions (with T-NBI depositing a slightly greater fraction of its
power to ions) which, in  preliminary analysis, appear too weak to account
for the observed change in ion thermal stored energy between T-NBI and
D-NBI.  The ion temperature in the high-power tritium shot exceeded 13 keV,
yielding a ratio of Ti/Te in excess of 2.  An issue that is under investigation
is whether the observed isotope effect could possibly be an artifact of the
tritium shots slipping into the hot-ion regime.

Tritium gas puffs and helium gas puffs were taken on a number of the
deuterium shots last week to study tritium, electron, and helium particle
transport.  Measurements in matched tritium plasmas are scheduled for this
week's run.  Density fluctuation measurements were obtained at 8 MW and 16
MW by the Beam Emission Spectroscopy (BES) diagnostic in the deuterium
plasmas.  Again, we hope to obtain comparable measurements in tritium
plasmas this week.

The objective of isotope transport scaling experiments in rf heated
discharges is to determine if the transport is different between D and T
plasmas in the absence of beam fueling.  An rf  power scan up to 4.8 MW
using the 63.6 MHz system was obtained in deuterium majority plasmas, in
the minority H heating regime.  Sawtooth stabilization was achieved for Prf
~ 3 MW and higher.  MSE measurements indicate that q(0) ~ 0.88 during the
sawtooth stabilized phase of the discharges.  The  onset of TAE modes was
observed at about 4.5 MW.  Temperatures of 5-6 keV at central densities in
the range of 5.5-6.0 1019 m^-3 were achieved at the higher RF power level.

Hydrogen minority ICRF heated tritium plasmas were studied  with
heating power up to 5.0 MW.  Approximately twenty tritium RF heated plasmas
were obtained.  Using a similar procedure to saturate the limiter with
tritium, i.e. conditioning to remove deuterium followed by saturation with
tritium through gas puffing into ohmic plasmas, a tritium concentration of
50-60%  was obtained in these plasmas.  Ti documentation was obtained on a
few discharges using a short beam blip to illuminate the Charge Exchange
Recombination Spectroscopy (CHERS) diagnostic.  Lithium pellets were
injected on a few discharges to measure the fast ion content.  Measurements
of the q(r) profile were obtained on a few shots using the Motional Stark
Effect (MSE) diagnostic.

Preliminary analysis indicates that taueE is modestly (~10%) higher in the
RF-heated tritium shots than in comparable RF-heated deuterium shots.
Analysis is presently underway to assess what fraction of this increase is
due to changes in the fast ion tail.  There appears to be little difference
in the power threshold for exciting TAE modes.  The power required for
sawtooth stabilization appears to be somewhat greater in tritium plasmas.

Finally, the frequency of the ICRF system was changed and ICRF heating
experiments were performed in the second harmonic tritium regime which
indicated the presence of an energetic ion tail.  The data is presently
being analyzed.

Future Plans

We are reconditioning the machine after the L-mode experiments to resume
alpha-physics experiments in the supershot regime.


R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news


_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 16 Sep 1995 15:53:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <-1609950650520001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com> ,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
>> >Not really, Matthew.  I'm just saying that to believe that the solution to
>> >obtaining controlled fusion lies in and through the expenditure of
>> >'gigabucks' is an unfounded and illogical assumption.  It is not a fact
>> >that problems can be solved by throwing a ton of money at them.
>> 
>> No, but it is a fact that the sort of small-scale experimentation which
>> you describe was done for roughly 30 years in all the major
>> technologically-advanced nations of the world, and all the
>> results suggested that small-scale research was not going to
>> get you to ignition.  There's still that chance that some wild
>> miraculous inspiration somewhere will save the day, but 
>> the odds seem pretty remote considering all the work that's
>> already been done.  Megabucks may not guarantee a solution
>> but they sure as hell improve the odds.  
>
>That is not what the results indicated at all.  That's what the scientists
>would like the legislatures to believe.  Null results for small
>experiments do not have a logical connection at all with the possibility
>of positive results with larger scale apparatus. 

But they didn't get null results.  What they got were scaling laws
which said that a small machine wouldn't cut it, but a larger machine
should work reasonably well.  For instance, the crucial parameter today, 
energy confinement time (in tokamaks at least) is known to increase
with the size of the machine and the strength of the magnetic field.
Actually, the ITER design is probably the largest tokamak that we will
ever contemplate building, because new advances in suppressing 
energy losses (such as the enhanced reversed shear mode reported on
TFTR this summer) will eventually allow us to build smaller machines 
that work just as well.  The plasma scaling laws dictate a fairly
large machine, but they don't dictate an ITER-size machine except in
a nearly worst-case sort of scenario.

> If the approach used by
>small scale apparatus (such as was used in Project Sherwood) was in error,
>building bigger equipment can't fix the approach. 

The corollary is that since building larger equipment has brought us a
lot closer to solving the fusion problem - which despite all your
ranting is a true statement - the original approach must not have 
been so bad.  

>> The biggest demon in (steady state, plasma-based) fusion 
>> research is energy transport from the hot interior, where 
>> the fusion reactions occur, to the cool 
>> (actually about 10,000 kelvin) edge.  
>
>Wrong.  The biggest demon is ignorance about the nuclear fusion process
>itself.  In spite of what you think is true, fusion never occurs as a
>result of the energetic collisions between interacting nuclei.  Not even
>in a nuclear weapon.  That's right - the weapons designers themselves have
>been wrong about how they work.  That's why their energy yield predictions
>are very accurate but their particle counts are four orders of magnitude
>off (so I've been told by a gov't contractor who audits tests).  I'm
>trying to give you a big hint here, Robert, as I have been dropping hints
>about this for six months.  No one is listening.

Charles, I hate to tell you this, but plenty of people have been
listening.
They just don't believe you.  A secondhand rumor from an *auditor*
is an awfully slender thread from which to hang such a weighty 
accusation about nuclear physics, even if one assumes that it's true
and not some form of government confusion or deliberate 
disinformation.  The idea that fusion occurs as a result of energetic
collisions has done perfectly well in explaining controlled fusion
results, stars and stellar evolution, and every major experiment which
has been done to test the theory.  Come back with something that 
more closely resembles an *explanation* for why this mysterious
nugget you've found overthrows all that, and maybe you might get 
some attention.  Note that a huge amount of inertial confinement
fusion research was declassified last year, so you might even be
able to get some hard facts on the subject.


 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 12:41:45 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <BFCCN7W.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>1. Calorimetry *is* sufficient to show CF, just as a neutron detector is
>sufficient to show hot fusion. Calorimetry is also sufficient to show
>fission in a radioactive sample. The sample gets hot and stays hot, far
>beyond the limits of chemistry. You do not need g-m counter to prove that
>a sample is radioactive.
> 
>2. Calorimetery, and excess heat are *not* sufficient to define CF because
>there are other vital aspects to the phonomenon that must be taken into
>account in order to understand it. You would not define fission by saying
>"it produces excess heat and nothing much else." You must also point out that
>elements are transmuted. The same is true of a CF sample.

OK, for the moment let's agree to let your statements stand as is. What is
the definition of CF? I am not asking for a detailed reciepe to create CF
effects just a simple definition. 

BTW, I haven't claimed caloriemetry is not sufficient to show CF. What I
have claimed is measurement of "excess" heat (particularly in the amounts
detected in CF experiments) is not sufficient to show *fusion*. At this
point, I am not convince CF is a fusion process. This does not mean I
doubt the heat measurements. I do doubt the *interpretation* of those
measurements as fusion.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 12:53:17 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <-1609950650520001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com>,
<singtech@teleport.com> wrote:

>In article <43db36$f0h@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> The biggest demon in (steady state, plasma-based) fusion 
>> research is energy transport from the hot interior, where 
>> the fusion reactions occur, to the cool 
>> (actually about 10,000 kelvin) edge.  
>
>Wrong.  The biggest demon is ignorance about the nuclear fusion process
>itself.  In spite of what you think is true, fusion never occurs as a
>result of the energetic collisions between interacting nuclei.  Not even
>in a nuclear weapon.  That's right - the weapons designers themselves have
>been wrong about how they work.  That's why their energy yield predictions
>are very accurate but their particle counts are four orders of magnitude
>off (so I've been told by a gov't contractor who audits tests).  I'm
>trying to give you a big hint here, Robert, as I have been dropping hints
>about this for six months.  No one is listening.

I can't tell if your information is accurate or not from this. Assuming it
is, it seems you are saying there are fundamental flaws in nuclear theory.
Is it too much trouble to be more specific? Instead of hints, how about a
specific explaination of the flaws?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / A Plutonium /  Re: 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: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 16 Sep 1995 21:07:28 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <43dgpu$43k@keknews.kek.jp>
ben@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

> Andrew Cooke (ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk) wrote:
> 
> (deleted)
> 
> Most of what Cooke posts contains wildly inaccurate statements which
> are a simple result of not bothering to check facts before ranting
> away with extremely ill-informed and often very stupid opinions.  If
> Cooke does not wish to be branded an idiot, he should stop behaving
> like one.
> 
> --
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (national lab. for high energy physics, Tsukuba, Japan)


   Oh come on now Dad, please don't lose your temper here. Remember
that Mr. Cooke is a well-mannered Englishman. 

   Besides your hands are full with Erika Maxine, and the tally so far
is that you may have delivered an upper-cut. But Erika has come
bouncing back with many jabs to your belly.
   Pleeeze oh pleeze Dad, don't peter-out on us here, like a 90 second
Mike Tyson fight.  I don't want to step-out for refreshments, only to
find you have been KO-ed. Stamina.

   P.S. Dearest Dad , please send me more money c/o Dartmouth, my
dishwasher money allowance was spent-up last week on a lovely redhead,
dinner and movies.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.16 / Randall Burns /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:38:31 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <AWC.95Sep16115538@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur Carlson TOK  <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <rburnsDEwMzM.Gso@netcom.com> rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) writes:
>
>> So which is it: are the guys trying to   ridicule the  ball claim
>> too gutless [...] or can they just not figure
>> out how to place sell orders on IF?
>
>Is that it? Just two choices? How about, I don't get a kick out of
>your game so I don't bother? 
Have you even bothered reading any of Robin Hanson's papers?
I didn't think so. 

>Make it worth my while.
Yeah, that's big talk coming from someone sucking on the government
tit. If you won't put your reputation on the line in an
_accountable_ way, why should anyone think you'd put
money on the line?(i.e. unless it was someone elses which
guys as national Labs seem good at doing.).

Furthermore, the one thing that you _could_ do to make it
possible that someday we might actually have a real 
information Futures exchange with real money, is to support
the present effort and make some _constructive_ input or
do some real technology in this area.

No, I think your just plain afraid of loosing a reputation
that is based on false pretenses. When I see you do something
real on someplace like the IF Exchange, then you'll start
to earn my respect. Academic degrees and positions in 
places like National Labs just don't impress me-
especially now that we are starting to see some
real alternatives to these institutions emarge.

I'm sure you don't give a damn what I think-and will come
back with some kind of witty response honed by your years
in the political cesspools of academe.  

>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
IMHO the National Labs represent much of what Franklin and
Jefferson most feared.

>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Yeah, right, like this is supposed to impress someone.
So far, it seems like Koloc and Farnsworth have done more
than these guys ever will with all their funding. 



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrburns cudfnRandall cudlnBurns cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 / Simon Rowland /  Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: Simon Rowland <simon@curtis.eagle.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Making He3 and related questions
Date: 17 Sep 1995 00:22:13 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews site

   About He3:

   I read on space.tech that tritium breaks down into He3. Does that 
mean that we could manufacture it earthside? or would it just react with 
the tritium? Anyway, what's the power yield with H (and could or would 
existing nuke plants be converted if there was a supply)? 

   Also, what's the deal with lunar He3? Does it exist or is it mere 
specuation? How could we detect it (aside from spraying H around and 
hoping you're not vaporized)? What would be its value if there were nuke 
plants ready to accept it?

   I'm really curious about this He3 stuff, and would appreciate _any_ 
info you have.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensimon cudfnSimon cudlnRowland cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.17 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Muon Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 03:06:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>Has muon catalyzed fusion ever been used
>with H2 (not D2) in order to compute the
>rate of p + p fusion?

No, this has not been observed.  The reaction p + p --> d + positron + nu
is endothermic.  It requires enough initial kinetic energy to compensate
for the greater mass of the particles produced.  This can happen in a
star but not in a muonic molecule.  

>(And, aside from that, how do they know the
>cross section for p + p fusion, which is
>incredibly small.)

It can be estimated theoretically, and incorporated into models
to show how stars evolve.  The models can be checked for consistency
with observed populations of stars.  
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Sep 18 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
