1995.10.05 / Bob Casanova /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:12:35 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <44vbbi$6es@martha.utcc.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:
>From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
>Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
>Date: 5 Oct 1995 01:11:14 GMT

>Matt Austern (matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <44nikn$1hs@nntp.interaccess.com> erst@interaccess.com
(Brian Erst) writes:

>: > Having read the same article, methinks you are reading too much of
>: > your own prejudices into it. The article was very high-level - the
>: > blurb you refer to is 2-3 sentences long. I would assume Mr. Walker
>: > was referring more to a "hydrogen economy" - one where hydrogen (from
>: > biomass, methane catalysis, splitting water using energy derived from
>: > fission/fusion/solar/wind/hydroelectric/black magic) is the prinicpal
>: > energy _storage and delivery_ mechanism.

>: I wouldn't assume that.  I've followed energy politics pretty closely
>: for the last fifteen years or so, and I'm quite convinced that most
>: people simply don't understand the distinction between energy
>: production and energy conversion.  Witness the widespread enthusiasm
>: for "clean" electric cars: not one article in a dozen asks the obvious
>: question of where all that electricity will come from and whether
>: electric generating plants are really all that clean.  (There is a
>: case to be made for electric cars, by the way, but it's a subtler
>: one.)

>Electric generators, even if running on fossil fuels, are often more
>efficient than internal combustion engines because they can operate at
>constant fixed speeds.  They burn in industrial volumes and are monitored
>and maintained by experts, hence lower pollution.  And the pollution comes
>where people are not.  And they can burn things other than gasoline--- one
>must also consider the thermodynamic cost in producing high-grade gasoline
>from raw fuel as well.

I believe the point was that the physical plant doesn't exist for conversion 
of even a large but minor part of the private transportation in the US to 
electrical.


>:   Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
>:   matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 


Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: vanesch@dice2.desy.de (Patrick P. E. Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 5 Oct 1995 14:44:51 GMT
Organization: DESY

Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote:

:    I should probably ignore this and just Plonk Mitchell Jones but:

Probably, yes :-)

:     What do you think Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle is all about?
: Since the virtual pions that mediate the strong force are generated
: "from nothing" by these fluctuations, everthing more complex than the
: hydrogen atom depends on something from nothing.  (If the color force
: holding the quarks which make up every baryon together is also
: mediated by virtual particles, then even hydrogen depends on something
: from nothing for it's existance.  I'm assuming that that issue is
: unresolved.)

It is not that "unresolved".  Although QCD has its problems (mainly
problems of calculational difficulty), the results are at least 
encouraging (meaning: if you find that the proton structure functions
evolve according to the Altarelli-Parisi equations (a pure and non-
trivial QCD result), if you find jets with the proper rates etc...
you can assume that there is at least something in QCD).

cheers,
Patrick.

--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 09:11:48 -0900
Organization: none

In article <44sipa$9mb@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

> In article <hheffner-2709952320230001@204.57.193.73> 
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) writes:
> >
> >                     ...                                       If the H
> >atom electron is in an orbital the integral of its electron charge
> >probability distribution (integrated over three axes, not just one) nets
> >out to -1 at the location of the nucleus. 
> 
> No. 
> 
> The integral over all space nets out at -1, but that value is not 
> 'located' anywhere.  Since you integrated over an infinite volume, 
> you do not know where it was.  
> 
> The integral *at* the origin is zero since the volume is zero. 
> 
> Anyway, if you ask "where is the electron" you have to take the 
> matrix element of r (the "where" operator) so you do not just 
> do a volume integral.  That is whence things like the rms radius 
> come from.  The center of the distribution is at the origin, but to 
> say that the electron is there is like saying that the asteroid belt 
> is at the center of the sun because its center of mass is there. 
> 
> -- 
>  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
>     http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.    
>  Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
>  Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 

The electron charge probability distribution (i.e. electron charge times
probability of occupying a small volume) is a concept useful for
calulating the average electron position relative to the nucleus, and
therefore total dipole moment (also a volume integral). This location is
not at the nucleus in an electrostatic field, for example, giving rise to
the dipolar nature of dielelectrics

The volume integral to which I referred is the total dipole moment
integral, which is a volume integral. For atoms not in an electric field
the avearge electron position is located at the nucleus, the net force
vector is 0.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 10:08:40 -0900
Organization: none

In article <44ek2p$5v4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com
(MRichar353) wrote:

> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)wrote:
> 
> >Yes, but we are mixing our metaphors here, so to speek. My fault.  But I
> >think the jist of what I am saying here still has some merit.  If the H
> >atom electron is in an orbital the integral of its electron charge
> >probability distribution (integrated over three axes, not just one) nets
> >out to -1 at the location of the nucleus. The electron *is* at the
> nucleus
> >in an average sense.  There is no potential energy. Similarly, if an
> >electron not in an orbital, but in orbit around an H nucleus, or
> >"colliding" with an H nucleus, approaches the nucleus withing the
> >deBroglie wavelength, the electrostatic postential is reduced because in
> >effect "part of" the electron is on the opposite side of the nucleus.  A
> >collision generating high energy photons, or permitting high energy close
> >approach to the nucleus would require a kind of running start toward the
> >nucleus to keep the free electron radius at less than the distance to the
> >nucleus.
> 
> This is not at all how qm works. First, the average radius of the ground
> state electron wave function is well-defined mathematically, and is equal
> to 1.5 bohr radii. Secondly, there *is* potential energy, metaphors do not
> cancel out mathematics. Thirdly, there is no shielding by the same
> electron which feels the shielding. Shielding *does* occur, but in
> multi-electron atome only.
> 
> Mark Richardson

First let me say there is no shielding effect being discussed here, at
least not on my part.

I believe the average radius of an orbital electron is material only to
the extent it affects the average electron position. So far, I believe
this discussion has not ventured into situations where average radius (or
distortions of the SE) might, such as extreme electrostatic fields.

There may be potetential energy between an orbital electron and a nucleus,
but where is the mechanism to use it? My point is, ignoring the minute
possibility of electron capture of an obital electron however briefly,
there is no way to utilize the average charge separation because the
average charge location of the electron is at the nucleus already, so
there is no average charge separation and no potential energy.  The only
way for this near MeV magnitude potential energy to be utilized, i.e.
converted to kinetic energy, is for a free (non-orbital, colliding or
orbiting) electron to approach the nucleus at a de Broglie wavelength that
does not preclude use of the full potential due to a similar effect,
namely placement of the average charge location closer to the  nucleus
than the de Broglie wavelength. Since the de Broglie wavelength is
inversely proportional to momentum, the distance of the nucleus from an
approaching free electron in terms of de Broglie wavelengths should
maintain a constant ratio until relativistic effects affect the mass of
the approaching electron.  If a free electron of nearly zero velocity is
well within it's de Broglie wavelength of a nucleus, the potential energy
available to it is greatly reduced compared to the potential energy seen
in the classical view.

In regards to mixing metaphors, my humble apology stands (like it or not!
8^)).  The metaphors to which I alluded were the mental model, the
vizualization, the assumptions about the real world, i.e. the "metaphor",
upon which this discussion is based. As an amateur new to these aspects of
physics, I  have been having an interresting time adjusting to the various
assumption sets of parties on the internet, e.g. QED (difficult enough by
itself), physics ala Mitchell Jones, SED (H. Puthoff), and others.  I
would point out that mathematics, or even just logic, can only be applied
when the assumptions are agreed upon, so is not relevant to my apology. 
On reviewing this thread it became apparent that only a QM interpretation
was relevant, so I am out of line introducing deductions based on other
assumptions without so noting.  Therefore, I most humbly apologize yet
again.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.06 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 15:44:18 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

>So why are new weapons needed? 

>Who does France intend to attack that requires *new* weapons? 

This was my feeling also.  A deterrent force need only be powerful
enough to make your attacker's losses so high as to be not worth the
potential gains of attacking.  In terms of nuclear force this need
only be a very small capability -- I mean, would the US even consider
attacking a country that had the potential to destroy (by nuclear
force) even *one* of their major cities?

No, I strongly believe that France has a hidden agenda.  Whether this
is simply a desire amongst the military leaders to boost their own
importance and power, or whether it's part of a much greater strategy
to exact retribution for crimes against France that have occured in
the past; I don't know.  Or perhaps it is simply that Chirac does not
have the balls to say "no" to the French military -- over the past
months I have gotten the feeling that Chirac is really a very weak,
frightened man who compensates by "talking big" in the world forum.
He may be fooling his own people but I think that the rest of the
world is intelligent enough to see the reality of the situation.

What I do know is that in my opinion, France has not tendered any
reasons that are even remotely credible in respect to her continued
nuclear testing.  If France is not very careful her predictions of
being unable to rely on her allies may well become a self-fulfilling
prophecy as she alienates herself from those nations that would be her
friends through her arrogant, contemptuous and provocative actions.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
Date: 5 Oct 1995 21:41:47 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <450ikv$7im@news.cea.fr> Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
> sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo) wrote:
> >What's the matter with you people? Can't you see a joke when it bites you?
> >
> 
>  In this newsgroup, people have claimed things so extraordinary and take so
> much offense when the rest of us thought it was a joke, that now everything
> is taken at face value. If you can pretend that cold fusion has been  
scientifically
> validated, then why a fusion reactor in your garage should sound so  
extraordinary ?
> 

Besides, P & F had a fusion reactor in their garage 6 years 
ago. Its old hat.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 5 Oct 1995 01:11:14 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Matt Austern (matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: In article <44nikn$1hs@nntp.interaccess.com> erst@interaccess.com (Brian Erst) writes:

: > Having read the same article, methinks you are reading too much of
: > your own prejudices into it. The article was very high-level - the
: > blurb you refer to is 2-3 sentences long. I would assume Mr. Walker
: > was referring more to a "hydrogen economy" - one where hydrogen (from
: > biomass, methane catalysis, splitting water using energy derived from
: > fission/fusion/solar/wind/hydroelectric/black magic) is the prinicpal
: > energy _storage and delivery_ mechanism.

: I wouldn't assume that.  I've followed energy politics pretty closely
: for the last fifteen years or so, and I'm quite convinced that most
: people simply don't understand the distinction between energy
: production and energy conversion.  Witness the widespread enthusiasm
: for "clean" electric cars: not one article in a dozen asks the obvious
: question of where all that electricity will come from and whether
: electric generating plants are really all that clean.  (There is a
: case to be made for electric cars, by the way, but it's a subtler
: one.)

Electric generators, even if running on fossil fuels, are often more
efficient than internal combustion engines because they can operate at
constant fixed speeds.  They burn in industrial volumes and are monitored
and maintained by experts, hence lower pollution.  And the pollution comes
where people are not.  And they can burn things other than gasoline--- one
must also consider the thermodynamic cost in producing high-grade gasoline
from raw fuel as well.

:   Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
:   matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: 5 Oct 1995 02:22:45 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <199510042036.QAA78255@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu  
(Richard A Blue) writes:
> Mitchell Jones makes certain claims about his way of doing physics
> as being superior to the way the rest of us do it. 

Thats fine with me. The proof is in the pudding. When MJ makes
some new experimentally verified predictions using his physics,
or provides a simple explanantion of some known phenomena
(such as discrete spectral lines for Hydrogen, double slit, etc), then I'll 
pay attention to him. As it stands, his physics looks like
a rather pathetic attempt at classical reasoning about 
atomic processes. Ho hum....

Maybe if we just ignore him, he'll end up in a closed debating 
loop with Archimedes Plutonium.







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


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.03 / Keith Corbett /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: corbett@pathcom.com (Keith A. Corbett)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: 3 Oct 1995 21:36:20 GMT
Organization: Pathway Communications

In article <444lm4$png@morgoth.sfu.ca>, gay@sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay) wrote:
>mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
>>Ian Gay (gay@sfu.ca) wrote:
>>:    Timothy Sullivan <Sullivan@kenyon.edu> wrote: 
>>:
>>: >Off the top of my head I seem to remember $1000/STP-liter.
>
>>: Just tried to look it up. All my current isotope catalogs fail to give a 
>>: price (Why? wildly fluctuating?) and say 'please call'.
>
>>It's probably a DOE controlled material.
>
>Well, yes, the catalogs all say they can't export more than $5000. 
>worth without approval. But why are they reluctant to say how much I 
>can buy for 5k?

You (Tim) can buy ~50 STP-l of 99.999% 3He.  A company called Isotech sells 
research grade 3He for about US$ 100/l.  That was their show "sale price" at
the 20th International Low Temperature Physics conference in Eugene Oregon 
(1993).  If you want cryogenic grade (and don't care about having >10ppm 4He 
in it) you might get your 3He more cheaply from your friendly neighbourhood 
purveyor of cryogenic research equipment (eg. Oxford Instruments, Janis 
Research).  50 STP-l would be an ample amount for use in a closed cycle 3He 
cyostat or dilution refrigerator.  You would only need 1 or 2 STP-l for a 
charge for a 3He melting curve thermometer. 

You could always purify a 3He/4He mixture using fractional distillation (known 
as "Lustration" in some circles) to get 3He with <10ppm 4He in it.

I would guess that the reason a price is not listed, is that the price is not
constant over the expected life of the catalog.  5-9s 3He was twice as 
expensive in 1990 as in 1993. 


Keith A. Corbett
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencorbett cudfnKeith cudlnCorbett cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.04 /  Labrys /  Re: Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them?
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3112-03.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them?
Date: 4 Oct 1995 13:06:28 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <44shm6$6rm@aggedor.rmit.EDU.AU>, s9511925@minyos.xx.rmit.EDU
AU (Patrick Joseph Dieter) writes:
|> 
|> hey there guys;

*and* gals (grin)

|> 
|>      i am a student at rmit that is despretely seeking some kind of basic 
|> info on nuclear fusion, can anyone give me any information or html sites 
|> that would be handy for me?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> thanks heaps, fellas.

I maintain a web directory of Fusion Research sites, both Magnetic and 
Inertial (no cold fusion-sorry). This includes a link to Bob Heeter's
"Fusion FAQ & Glossary". You can find it at:

http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt/fusion.html

Hope this helps
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 95 02:11:37 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <199510042036.QAA78255@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>,
   blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>Mitchell Jones makes certain claims about his way of doing physics
>as being superior to the way the rest of us do it.  I think we
>may question whether Mitchell can even be true to his own way
>of doing things.  We already know he is not going to do physics
>our way.
>
>Principle of Continuity.  Mitchell makes this the cornerstone of
>his condemnation of orthodox quantum mechanics.  According to
>him, "The Principle of Continuity states that no entity may come
>into existance out of nothing or vanish into nothing."  If this
>is the basis for his condemnation of quantum mechanics there must
>be some examples from quantum theory that are in violation of
>this principle.  What are they?  Perhaps I have not thought hard
>enough about this, but I can't think of anything in quantum mechanics
>that represents a clear violation.
>

[ . . . ]

>
>What excuse does Mitchell have for assuming that his photons start
>out with zero velocity and accelerate?  If it is continuity he wants
>why is he not disturbed by the entire concept of the creation and
>annihilation of photons?  If they are to be created why not create
>them with the proper velocity?
>

Maybe Michell can tell us where this photon acceleration comes from. Looks 
like it comes "out of nothing", and thus, the principle of continuity is 
internally inconsistent.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 /  SoBernardo /  Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
Date: 5 Oct 1995 02:32:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

What's the matter with you people? Can't you see a joke when it bites you?

sobernardo@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensobernardo cudlnSoBernardo cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 18:10:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Journal Papers: Current count = 1003
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
An HK, Jeong EI, Hong JH, Lee Y;  Fusion Technol. 27 (1995) 408.
"Analysis of deformed palladium cathodes resulting from heavy water
electrolysis".
** Experimental, Pd deformation by electrolysis; res+
This follows the work of Yamaguchi, who observed the deformation of a Pd
plate exposed to D2 gas, where a gold layer was evaporated, from which Y
inferred high temperatures and thus anomalous heat production. The Korean team
attempted to observe this by doing an electrolysis experiment on Pd plates as
cathodes. Two cathodes were made up, as Pd sandwiches, 10*10*1 mm^3, between
a gold layer, 200 nm, on one side and a Ti layer, 20 nm, coated with Pd, also
20 nm thick, on the other. Temperatures were monitored during electrolysis, in
0.1 M LiOD at up to 200 mA, with a bit of current reversal now and then. The
two electrodes faced each other. Electrolysis was sustained for 18 days, when
the cell exploded; the authors believe that D2 and O2 gas may have played a
role in that and strongly recommend a good recombiner. The plates were
deformed and it seems that, just as with Yamaguchi, high temperatures may have
been reached; e.g. there was some Au-Pd alloying, seen by surface analysis
(OM, SEM and SAM). There was some evidence of temp. increases within the plates
(up to maybe 1000 C) before the explosion.  There is some diffusion maths.
Jun-93/Jul-95
#...................................................................... Oct-95 
Bruschi M, Marconi U, Zoccoli A;
Hadronic Phys., Winter Course 8th 1993 (Pub. 1994); Eds: M. Giblisco,
G. Preparata, A. Zenoni; World Sci., Singapore; (1994) 332.
"The neutron spectrometer of the cold fusion experiment under the Gran Sasso
Laboratory".
** Experimental, neutron detector design, res0. No FPH/Jones refs.
This team designed the sensitive coincidence neutron spectrometer that was
used in the Gran Sasso cold fusion studies (Italian style, Ti and D2 gas,
temp. cycling). Within the 10*10*10 cm^3 cell there were 3 1.5 mm NE905, 6Li
glass scintillator plates, in NE213C liquid matched to the glass's refractive
index. Pulse shape discriminators filtered out gamma background. This setup
was extensively tested and all is reported here. Monte Carlo calculations
also confirmed the performance. 
#...................................................................... Oct-95 
Tsuchiya K-I, Ohashi K, Fukuchi M;  Fusion Technol. 27 (1995) 452.
"A possible mechanism for nuclear reactions in solids".
** Theoretical, Boson clusters, res+
The authors improve on the model of Bush and Eagleton, proposing Boson clusters
as the mechanism for CNF. Electronic screening may reduce the mutual deuteron
repulsion, which would otherwise prevent clustering. The model tries direct
Coulomb screening, Thomas-Fermi screening, and other theory, and concludes
that F&P-level CNF is feasible, i.e. about 10 W/cm^3.  May-93/Jul-95.
#...................................................................... Oct-95 

These papers are now archived in the cnf-pap* files.

How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Mario Pain /  Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!!
Date: 5 Oct 1995 12:21:51 GMT
Organization: cea

sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo) wrote:
>What's the matter with you people? Can't you see a joke when it bites you?
>

 In this newsgroup, people have claimed things so extraordinary and take so
much offense when the rest of us thought it was a joke, that now everything
is taken at face value. If you can pretend that cold fusion has been scientifically
validated, then why a fusion reactor in your garage should sound so extraordinary ?

Regards


Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct  6 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
