1995.10.05 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Tiy
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Tiy
Date: 5 Oct 95 13:58:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <44amuv$4qq@soenews.ucsd.edu>, 
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> In article <1995Sep12.133019.2403@plasma.byu.edu>  writes:
>> > 
>> Nope, not so simple.  Kasagi et al. deal at length with the D(3He,p)4He
>> reaction, suggested by Sevior above -- and rule it out.
>> 
> 
> Is it possible that the D(3He,p)4He reaction occuring between
> a D & 3He in moving CM reference frame---one with the center of
> mass energy at several MeV---could be the source of the high
> energy spectrum of p's and alpha's? This would require D's
> and 3He's with energies of several MeV, but it seems such could
> exist as the result of prior reactions _and_ collisions with, say,
> 14 MeV protons from the D(3He,p)4He reaction.
> 
> For example, suppose a 3He (present either as a 0 MeV 
> impurity, or a 1 MeV product of D(D,p)3He)
> collided with a 14 MeV p from a D(3He,p)4He reaction,
> to boost its energy up to several (~4) MeV,
> and then entered into a D(3He,p)4He---it seems the 
> p & alpha produced could each carry a couple MeV extra into the detector.
>  
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>>

One must look at the cross-sections for such a reaction chain, as well
as getting the energy right to match the Kasagi observations (or claims).
What you're suggesting has a very low probability since you posit first
a reaction that gives the 3He (or d) extra energy -- a low probability 
event since most of the energy in slowing ions in the metal will go to
electrons etc. -- then this 3He (or d) has to undergo an *inelastic* 
reaction with a deuteron (or whatever) in the TiDx.  Both steps are
highly unlikely; the product of probabilities is zilch.

Besides, in the Kasagi et al. paper, p. 781, they explain that they did
try the experiment of bombarding the TiDx with 1.5 MeV 3He (and 3.3 MeV p+)
-- "the irradiated dose was more than 100 times of that of the products of the
D+D reaction.  Again, no alpha particles were observed."

At the same time, I acknowledge that the probability of a three body reaction
d+d+d --> p + n + alpha (Q=21.6 MeV)
which Kasagi et al. posit is also exceedingly unlikely.
Again, I'd like to check their results before attempting an explanation.

--Steven Jones  
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 /  CoolWar /  Re: Cold Fusion Conference, Poland
     
Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Conference, Poland
Date: 5 Oct 1995 19:15:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Anyone interested in taking part in an inexpensive international cold
fusion seminar under consideration and to be organized next fall (1996) in
a proposed location of Ostroda, 250 km north-east of Warsaw in the Masury
Region ( beautiful region with many lakes, forests and the former Teutonic
Knights', mediaeval castles - actuallu the seminar may take place in one
such castle),  please send e-mail or post a card or letter to Dr. hab.
Roman Sioda, at Institute of Industrial Organic Chemistry, address:  ul.
Annopol 6, 03-236 Warszawa-Zeran, Warsaw, POLAND; e-mail address:
<inorg@frodo.nask.org.pl>.  Thank you!
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Matt Austern /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 05 Oct 1995 23:20:53 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <cas.253.00324641@ops1.bwi.wec.com> cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com
(Bob Casanova) writes:

> 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.

That's a good point, but it's really not the one I was making.  I was
making a much simpler, cruder point: electricity is not an energy
source.  Electric cars may be a good idea, or may be a terrible idea:
the answer depends on all sorts of subtleties: the relative
efficiencies of internal combustion engines versus large power plants,
storage batteries, and electric motors, the ease of building new
power plants, the relative ecological impact of coal and oil and 
uranium, and so on.

My point was that it is a complicated issue simply because the
electricity used for electric cars has to come from somewhere.  The
vast majority of the articles that discuss electric cars, though,
whether the articles are pro or con, don't ask where the electricity
comes from.  Thus, the articles never even begin to discuss any of the
real reasons why electric cars are either a good idea or a bad idea.

My point was simply that most of the discussion of energy in American
public discourse, whether it's discussion of electric cars, or
hydrogen, or fusion, doesn't distinguish between production of energy
and conversion of energy from one form to another.  There's a lot of
confusion on these subjects.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 18:25:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-2909950849520001@204.57.193.73>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> Since discussion of the Griggs device tests have turned to discussion of
> the Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell, I thought this new thread
> might be appropriate for the subject.
> 
> First let me say I thought the results of the Patterson Power Cell tests
> ("Flowing Electrolyte Calorimitry" by Dennis Cravens, Infinite Energy,
> Vol. 1 No. 2, 1995) were pretty rigorous and the COP (coefficient of
> power) impressive.  I agree with Mitchell Jones (below) that specific heat
> was addressed both in the article and in the experiment via a calibration
> resistor, and that the points I bring up here may be related to values too
> small to significantly affect the COP achieved.  Nevertheless, there is
> some effect due to specific gravity change which may be unaccounted for
> and thus deserves attention.
> 
> Calibration runs were made before and after the heat runs using a
> calibration resistor. It was specifically stated (bottom of column 2 page
> 20) that the second calibration run gave heat ouput that was greater than
> you could expect "by simple additive processes."  The article goes on to
> state that the intrumentation may overestimate the heat generated, but it
> is thought the magnitude of the overestimation is much less than the
> measured effect.
> 
> The main point I want to make in regard to this experiment is that
> specific gravity must be measured at various points in the experiment.
> This is because, as the experiment progresses, H2 and O2 gas is produced
> the cell. The electrolyte chemistry and specific gravity probably change
> during the run (H2 and O2 generated) and during the calibration run (no O2
> generated, probably some electrode H2 outgassing effects). The gas
> splitter probably is not 100 percent effective.  Since the article
> mentions no specific gravity determinations, it seems that this is an
> anaccounted for experimental variable.

***{It is, of course, unaccounted. Moreover, variations in the specific
gravity of the electrolyte are certainly possible in any closed loop
design where the same electrolyte is recirculated over and over. However,
such variations would impact the experimental results only if they changed
the specific heat enough to account for the observed excess heat effect.
In the Griggs hot water runs, with a percentage COP of less than 110, this
would be possible--except that the electrolyte wasn't recirculated. And,
in the Cravens runs, where the electrolyte *was* recirculated, my
recollection is that the COP varied from 300 to 1000 %--which means:
specific gravity variations could not have accounted for that effect,
either. Bottom line: it would be nice to know what the specific gravity
variations were, but only as a matter of idle curiosity. There is *no way*
they could have accounted for the "excess heat" in either of these
experiments. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
<remainder snipped>

***{By the way, Horace: thanks for the e-mail reminder about this post.
You were right: it had slipped my mind. In addition, I seem to be coming
down with the flu, and I suspect that my ability to respond to posts is
going to be rather limited for the next few days. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.05 /  GreeneAda /  Help w/Cold Fussion
     
Originally-From: greeneada@aol.com (GreeneAda)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help w/Cold Fussion
Date: 5 Oct 1995 22:26:25 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I'm a high school student who is participating in an advance physics class
dealing with cold fussion.  I have been searching in vain for articles,
but so far I have come up empty-handed.  If anyone knows some ftp sites
that deal with cold fussion in particular, I'ld appreciate if you could
let me know.

Many Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengreeneada cudlnGreeneAda cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct  7 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
