1995.10.17 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:53:29 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45tobe$g06@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) wrote:

> I had begun to habitually bypass any posting with the subject line
> of "Farce of Physics" because for so long it seemed to have nothing
> to do with fusion - hot or cold. But here I find this thread going
> on under the "Farce... " subject heading which really does have
> something to do with fusion! Why hide it in this way?

***{It was only "hidden" from the narrow minded, Bill. To those of us who
are open to opinion with which we do not necessarily agree, it was in
plain view. As for your attempt to reclassify this topic under a different
name, why do you insult Mr. Wallace in this way? It is substantially his
idea, and he should be permitted to call the thread anything he damn well
pleases! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
[The rest snipped]

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:45:34 -0900
Organization: none

In article <R7KG4gA.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[snip]
>  
> I think you are right about that. They have built larger cells already, years
> ago. I think it would be easy for them to build a small steam engine or
> thermoelectric engine. As for plans on the horizon . . . I cannot talk about
> them.
> Sorry!
>  
> - Jed


Do you know if the beads are, or will be, for sale?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Horace Heffner /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:35:11 -0900
Organization: none

In article <4603rp$b9v@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> In article <45ugc1$m7a@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov
> (Kennel) writes:
> >
> >I doubt that any terrorist group has a 'nuclear backpack' unless it was
> >provided or stolen from the USSR or USA.  Probably none of the other
> nuclear
> >powers has had reason or motivation to develop such forms of weaponry
> >(making bombs which are either smaller or bigger than Hiroshima is 
> >difficult!)
> 
> Somehow I am not buying a word of what you've written. In the fourties the
> Manhattan project developed the two bombs dropped on Japan in a very short
> time, and with immediate success. This tells me that it was not very hard
> to build the bombs. (And the one used for testing) The fact that the Bravo
> device later generated 15 Megatons tells me that it is not very hard to
> build large nuclear bombs. All you need is a little lithium deuteride. We
> also know that low yield nukes have been developed and tested, in
> particular the ones they caled Neutron Bombs. 
> 
> The case of this reaction:
> 
> 7Li + n  ---> 6Li + n + n
> 
> I buy the fact that it is endothermic, but it is still a good deal, since
> we gain two slow neutrons from a fast one and we gain 6Li which is good
> for the T production. The slow neutrons are ideal to promote further
> nuclear reactions. There are plenty of other reactions producing heat, all
> of them described earlier in this thread (The Farce of physics)
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

As far as I recall, every mechanism proposed was refuted as being capable
of sustaining a chain reaction.  Perhaps you would restate a mechanism
capable of sustaining a chain reaction. It would be especially helpful if
you would note input energies required and in addition to output energies
evolved, so it will be apparent the slow neutrons above are not assumed to
be going into reactions requiring fast neutrons, and vice versa.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Tom Droege /  Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Return to Rome
Date: 17 Oct 1995 17:55:06 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Return to Rome                                      951017

I have now completed a second trip to Rome.  So far this has
cost me about 5 vacation days and two exhausting trips, so I
now claim I have earned the collected money.  As usual I did
not get all my expenses.  If anyone objects let me know.

This all started out with calls from INCA, a British TV film
production company.  At first they seemed to be trying to
get me and Frank Close together to discuss the Griggs
machine.  I thought they were going to visit me at Fermilab
or in my basement.  As time went on it became clear that
they wanted to get us both together at the Griggs plant.
Then I made the "Return to Rome" post and got a very quick
message from the producer of the program, Bill Redway.  It
seems there was a very delicate negotiation going on where
they were trying to get Griggs to agree to allow Frank Close
to make a visit.

In the end, they would not agree to allow Frank Close in
the plant.  I was not too anxious to make a second trip to
Rome even if it meant being "on TV".  I figure to find my 15
minutes of fame somewhere else.  But Jennifer talked me into
it.

It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs
seems to trust.

The title of the program is "EQUINOX - Tapping the Energy of
the Vacuum".  It is to be a 50 minute program with three
major segments of which the Griggs device is one.  They hope
to sell it to the Discovery Channel in the US.  I figure it
will take about 6 months to get the video tapes in shape for
a program.

It is not so easy being a talking head.  It is clear they
want nice little 20 second sound bytes.  One has to try to
get one's point across while keeping it short and exciting.
It is all a blur.  I have no idea but what I said something
awful.  I did succeed in asking Griggs some pointed
questions about how they measured things while walking
around the machine and pointing at stuff.  But you never
know what they will use.  There was a wonderful "duhhhh"
response when I asked him about the sigma of the temperature
measurements.  I doubt they will use the clip as it is "too
technical".

There were artsy shots of me driving through Rome, my feet
walking up to to the door of the Griggs plant, and looking
past my talking head at the scenic down town district.

They did about an hour and a half of me being a talking head
while they asked a list of prepared questions.  The
questions were fair and balanced, mostly designed to get my
view across.  But who knows what they will use.

I saw the same group as last time, Jim Griggs, Kelly Hudson,
Dave Parker but not Scott Smith.  Scott Smith was the
engineer who used to work for Chukanov.  All the evidence
was that Griggs is no longer trying to do any science at
all.  There was a completed "see through" machine that was
being assembled the last time I was there, but there was no
evidence that it was instrumented or that they were doing
any tests on it.

The one machine on the test stand now had only two
thermocouples on the input and output.  Nothing indicated
that they were doing anything but investigating production
problems.  I did persuade the film crew to photograph the
pallet where there was a wonderful assortment of Griggs
rotors.  Fat ones, thin ones, big holes, little holes, holes
at an angle.  In fact every conceivable shape.  Edison at
work.

Near the end of the trip, Griggs put his arm around me and
confided that he still has not bought a log book.  So I
think they have canned Scott Smith and are no longer trying
to do anything serious about a measurement program.

They seem to have found a few applications for the machine
whether or not it is over unity.  More power to them to find
commercial success.

Tom Droege




cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  biggy /  How many theory or model is there for CF?
     
Originally-From: gopher11@gopher.nthu.edu.tw (biggy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How many theory or model is there for CF?
Date: 17 Oct 1995 18:50:34 GMT
Organization: National Tsing Hua Univ. Computing Centre, Taiwan


   May anyone please give me an answer?
   And where to get all the info?
   thanks!!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengopher11 cudlnbiggy cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Karl Hahn /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:24:38 GMT
Organization: Loral Data Systems

In article <45n35g$ssb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

[deletia]

[Feynman quote:]
>   vacuum). Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if A
>   gets smaller, but the smaller A is, the higher the momentum required,
>   because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the
>   kinetic energy. The total energy is 
>        E = h^2/2mA^2 - e^2/A.     (38.10)
>   
>   We do not know what A is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange
>   itself to make  some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little
>   as possible. In order to minimize E,  we differentiate with respect to
>   A, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for A. The derivative of
>   E is 
>       dE/dA = -h^2/mA^3 + e^2/A^2,  (38.11)
>   
>   and setting dE/dA = 0 gives for A the value
>   
>      A_0 = h^2/me^2 = 0.528 angstrom
>                               = 0.528 x 10^-10 meter. (38.12)
>   
>   This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus
>   learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is
>   right: This is pretty good-- in fact, it is amazing, since until now we
>   have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are
>   completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the
>   electrons would spiral into the nucleus.
>      Now if we put the value (38.12)  for A_0 into (38.10) to find the
>   energy, it comes out
>             E_0 = -e^2/2A_0 = -me^4/2h^2 = -13.6ev.   (38.13)
>   
[deletia]

>   --- end of quoting of Feynman Lectures, vol 1, page 38-6 ---
>   
>     So, momentum P, where P = mc
>   
>    then Uncertainty Principle (UP) we have h/P = h/mc = Compton
>   wavelength
>   
>     Thus, to get around UP, or better yet, put UP to work. We can
>   calculate what the mass of a nuclear electron is, in order for it to
>   hold together say the 4 protons of helium 4@2 by the 2 nuclear
>   electrons. Would the mass of the 2 nuclear electrons be muon masses or
>   would they be tau masses?
>   
>     This is all pretty for the UP predicts what the masses of nuclear
>   electrons must be in order to be inside the nucleus, or inside the
>   individual protons moving very rapidly from one proton to another in
>   order to strong force hold them together. Understand that the Coulombic
>   nuclear strong force of nuclear electrons is 83 times stronger than
>   normal Coulomb force.

You mean you cannot do this yourself, AP, with all your math expertise??
Allow me to assist:

A neutron size is on the order of 1e-15 meters.  Substitute that into
the right hand side of equation 38.12.  Since both h and e are
constants, m must change.  In fact it must grow by a factor of
0.528e-10 meters / 1e-15 meters, or in other words, by a factor of
52800.  That would place its mass higher by an order of magnitude
than a tau and higher by two orders of magnitude than a muon.  So
tell me, AP, is your conjecture predicting the existence of a new
lepton of rest energy in the order of 26000 MeV (nearly 30 proton
masses)?  And if so, why does a neutron weigh far less than 30 proton
masses, since according to material that you posted above (and I
agree with) the electron (or whatever you claim is the proton's
partner in your model of a neutron would have to have that amount
of mass?

--
|         (V)              |  "Tiger gotta hunt.  Bird gotta fly.
|   (^    (`>              |   Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
|  ((\\__/ )               |   Tiger gotta sleep.  Bird gotta land.
|  (\\<   )   der Nethahn  |   Man gotta tell himself he understand."
|    \<  )                 |  
|     ( /                  |                Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|      |                   |  
|      ^           hahn@lds.loral.com          my opinions need not be Loral's

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhahn cudfnKarl cudlnHahn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Sea Witch /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: pn30@columbia.edu (Sea Witch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:26:26 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

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

>I was curious as to the exact basis for the fusion >> fission
>result. Reason: if it were DT fusion, most of the energy comes
>out as neutrons, and so you seem no better off than fission 
>in that regard (neutrons cannot be directed to creat thrust...they
>will need to have their energy converted to heat, and go through
>some standard thermal thrust production process).

	But most proposals for fusion-powered space craft don't use DT - they
use D-3He, which is aneutronic.

>Further, the power density of a DT Tokamak fusion reactor
>is abotu 5 x _less_ than that of a fission reactor 
>(power per unit mass of reactor), due to the large magnet system and
>large vacant space in the fusion system.

	Yes, but the general idea is not to use a tokamak. The proposals I've
seen have either used inertial confinement (with relativistic electron
beams) or magnetic mirrors. Not a tokamak at all.

>So: what type of fusion device was being invisioned to
>produce superior specific impulse? Was it some sort of 
>linear mirror machine with aneutronic fuel that would directly
>release its exhaust to provide the thrust?

	As I said, that's one of the ideas. The other main one is to use
inertial confinement and a magnetic nozzle, with aneutronic fuel. It
is sometimes referred to as fusion micro-explosion propulsion. It is a
key part of the Daedalus proposal.

	Pierce Nichols

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpn30 cudfnSea cudlnWitch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / guiness att /  MTF-magnetic target fusion?
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MTF-magnetic target fusion?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:21:44 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

Does such a thing exist: is there any open literature on it? signed I.M. 
Entrubble.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 17 Oct 1995 05:35:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: So with 5 watts  and 14 ml/sec I can compute 5/14 joules/ml which
: directly equates to a pressure. Assuming the other numbers posted are
: correct, this should be equivalent to 206 atmospheres.

I hope not because 14 ml/sec at 5 joules/sec equates to a pressure drop
of 3.4 atmospheres!

Note that you should have taken 14 ml per MINUTE, or 0.233 ml per SECOND. :-)
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 17 Oct 1995 10:04:05 GMT
Organization: cea

court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis) wrote:

>
>Let us be clear as to the implications of what is being claimed.  Fusion
>in light water is much more astonishing than cold suion in deuterated water.
>It would require a complete reworking of weak interaction physics, and
>could probably be considered as the most important discovery in physics
>since the mid-30's.  A complete reworking of two generations of work
>in stellar astrophysics would probably aslo be required.
>IF it's true ...
>
 No problem. Some people in this newsgroup are quite capable of revising
QM without understanding it, so why not Astrophysics as well!
























cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 17 Oct 1995 10:05:38 GMT
Organization: cea

court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis) wrote:
 
>Possibly you might ask them to post directly here?  In view of the radical
>nature of their achievements, and the most unfortunate fact that the media
>so entirely overlooked the physics story of the decade?  But no ... no
>doubt they are too busy, or would be put off by the harsh reception they might
>receive here, or whatever ...

 You forgot the bit about all this media being paid by the scientific community
(pardon, "welfare queens in white coats") lobby not to show this physics
breaktrough.



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 17 Oct 1995 10:12:04 GMT
Organization: cea

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
>: So with 5 watts  and 14 ml/sec I can compute 5/14 joules/ml which
>: directly equates to a pressure. Assuming the other numbers posted are
>: correct, this should be equivalent to 206 atmospheres.
>
>I hope not because 14 ml/sec at 5 joules/sec equates to a pressure drop
>of 3.4 atmospheres!
>
>Note that you should have taken 14 ml per MINUTE, or 0.233 ml per SECOND. :-)
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 So I will ask again my original question: WHAT WAS THE FLOW AND THE PRESSURE DROP 
MEASURED ON THE EXPERIMENT ?????

Mario Pain

















cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 17 Oct 1995 10:18:16 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>In the (unlikely) event that the containment at Mururoa was breached
>and nuclear polution (despite claims to the contrary) did threaten the
>nations of the South Pacific, what would you, as a French citizen and
>advocate of the testing program consider the minimum acceptable action
>that the French government should take to compensate for these peoples
>for the damage that would occur?

 French law provides for the compensation of french citizens for damages
caused by actions of the State. Citizens of other countries affected should
be entitled to the same compensations and/or protective action. I think you
will find this reasonable.

>
>I realise that this *is* highly speculative, but I think despite the
>fact that the chances of winning a big lottery may be measured in
>hundreds of millions to one, they *are* won with monotonous
>regularity.  It would be at least some consolation to those
>(allegedly) placed in jeopardy if they knew that France had some kind
>of damage control or compensation plan formulated.

 Since France has started its civil nuclear program (as much as 78% of
eclectricity is produced in France in nuclear plants), such a scheme has
been fromulated.

>
>The *big* worry is that in the event of such an occurence, France
>would simply unilaterally grant independence to French Polynesia and
>walk away from the whole mess with threats of cutting export access to
>EU markets if these nations complained (an underhand tactic which
>*was* used to blackmail New Zealand after the Rainbow Warrior
>bombing).

 If the French government did such a thing, I will be certainly fighting it!


Regards

Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 17 Oct 1995 10:27:59 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this
>>device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter
>>without the flowing electrolyte.  Could you fill us in on the details
>>regarding that experiment, Jed?  If it is so easy to duplicate this
>>effect in a simple static calorimeter why would anyone bother with the
>>complexity of the set-up with the flowing electrolyte for demonstration
>>purposes?
> 
>That is a stupid question. A very stupid question, but as it happens, I
>answered it in the first message. A static calorimeter requires calibration
>in advance to determine the heat transfer coefficient (the temperature rise
>for each watt of power). A flow calorimeter also requires calibration of
>course, but because it is a first principle device you can come through the
>door in the middle of the experiment and see that it is working; it is not a
>case where you *must have* the calibration curve in order to judge the result.
>Therefore, for the purposes of a public experiment where new observers come
>and go, a flow calorimeter is easier to understand and more convincing.

 Why in the name of christ didn't you answer the question without starting
qualifying the question ? The question is not stupid (at least, not above the
average level of stupidity of sci.physics.fusion) and the answer could be
done without this tone of superiority, but there is more to follow...

> 
>This is patently obvious. It is so utterly simple and so easy to understand
>for anyone who is familiar with calorimeters, that only a complete fool like
>Dick Blue would wonder about it. The fact that he did not instantly
>understand it when I explained the first time proves that he does not have
>the foggiest idea what we are talking about here, and he does not understand
>the fundamentals of calorimetry, or thermodynamics, or grade schools physics
>for that matter.
> 
 You are a nasty piece of work, Jed Rothwell!
 You show absolutely no respect for anybody who does not agree with you own 
opinion. Either you accept wathever you say and then everything is ok (just),
or you ask a question, however benign, and you get a page of insults. I do 
not know what is your age or your education (and I do not care). But you behave
like a badly educated child.




























cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Darin Barnes /  test
     
Originally-From: D.L.B.@ix.netcom.com (Darin Barnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:17:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom

this is just a test

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnDarin cudlnBarnes cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 07:25:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <45ugc1$m7a@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov
(Kennel) writes:
>
>I doubt that any terrorist group has a 'nuclear backpack' unless it was
>provided or stolen from the USSR or USA.  Probably none of the other
nuclear
>powers has had reason or motivation to develop such forms of weaponry
>(making bombs which are either smaller or bigger than Hiroshima is 
>difficult!)

Somehow I am not buying a word of what you've written. In the fourties the
Manhattan project developed the two bombs dropped on Japan in a very short
time, and with immediate success. This tells me that it was not very hard
to build the bombs. (And the one used for testing) The fact that the Bravo
device later generated 15 Megatons tells me that it is not very hard to
build large nuclear bombs. All you need is a little lithium deuteride. We
also know that low yield nukes have been developed and tested, in
particular the ones they caled Neutron Bombs. 

The case of this reaction:

7Li + n  ---> 6Li + n + n

I buy the fact that it is endothermic, but it is still a good deal, since
we gain two slow neutrons from a fast one and we gain 6Li which is good
for the T production. The slow neutrons are ideal to promote further
nuclear reactions. There are plenty of other reactions producing heat, all
of them described earlier in this thread (The Farce of physics)

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:52:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
 
     "As I see it, a much more important questions Dick raised are why can't
     the SOFE result/demonstration be explained in terms of known chemistry?"
 
Oh come now. You must be kidding. That is even stupider than the flow
calorimeter question. That is colossally stupid! Do you think a match can burn
for a month? Get real! There is no chemical fuel in the cell. There is only
water, plastic and 40 milligrams of metal, and none of it burns. This cell, I
remind you, produced 85 megajoules of energy nonstop, before the conference.
The best common chemical fuel is gasoline. It would take 2 kilograms of
gasoline to produce that much energy. Can you tell the difference between 0.04
and 2000? This cell produced 50,000 times more energy than any chemical cell
could. (Don't forget that water does not burn.)
 
Only an innumerate and scientifically illiterate fool like Richard Blue would
seriously propose that this might be a chemical reaction.
 
 
     "Is there any evidence of fusion other than heat?"
 
I don't know. I have not discussed that issue with anyone except George Miley,
and he did not have much to say about it yet.
 
 
     "What is the assumed fusion reaction given the description of this
     device as working with "light water"?"
 
The people at CETI make no assumptions about the fusion reactions involved.
They don't know what causes the heat. However, they do know that the reaction
cannot be chemical, because unlike Richard Blue they understand the second law
of thermodynamics and they can tell the difference between 0.04 and 2000.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 09:05:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
> You are a nasty piece of work, Jed Rothwell!
> You show absolutely no respect for anybody who does not agree with you own 
>opinion. Either you accept wathever you say and then everything is ok (just),
>or you ask a question, however benign, and you get a page of insults. I do 
>not know what is your age or your education (and I do not care). But you behave
>like a badly educated child.
 
Why should I show respect for contrarian debunkers like Richard Blue? He
is not serious. He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy. He knows that a flow calorimeter is
better for a demonstration than a static calorimeter. He is posting messages
like that in order to confuse the issue and make trouble. He knows he is
wrong, but he does not care. He is here to spread propaganda & confusion, and
mislead people and start gratuitous arguments.
 
And you! How about yourself? Talk about a spoiled brat! How many times have
I given you the flow rate of SOFE demonstration cell? Three times? Four
times? Didn't I e-mail it directly to you? Yet you *still* come back here
whining and moaning like a 2-year old saying "somebody tell me what the
flow rate is! Somebody give me the numbers!" Just like a damn 2 year old
demanding to be spoon fed. You have all the information you need to prove
BEYOND ANY DOUBT that water friction has nothing to do with the heat. If
you don't believe me, I am sure you are capable of buying a fishtank pump
or any small lab pump, setting up a 14 ml/min flow, and measuring the
temperature yourself. Yes, even you can shut up and do an experiment -- anyone
can. So you don't need to whine, moan, complain, kick and carry on, you can
shut up and find out for yourself. But no, that is not the Way Of The Skeptic.
A "skeptic" never *does* anything, he never thinks for himself, he never
looks up any numbers, he never bothers to call the scientists at U. Ill.
(although he might call the public relations office, where they know nothing).
No, the Way Of The Skeptic is to bother other people and demand that other
people do all their thinking for them, and when a "skeptic" sees Dick Blue
go wandering off into never-never-land spouting nonsense that happens to
violate thermodynamics, the "skeptic" says "baa, baa" and follows along like
a good little lamb. He believes anything Dick Blue tells him; he questions
nothing; he knows nothing; he does no experiment; he reads no papers. Well,
I say you are a bunch of fools and jerks, and a disgrace to science, and
a laughinstock. All of you!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 00:38:37 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <J-KFgkZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this
>>device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter
>>without the flowing electrolyte.  Could you fill us in on the details
>>regarding that experiment, Jed?  If it is so easy to duplicate this
>>effect in a simple static calorimeter why would anyone bother with the
>>complexity of the set-up with the flowing electrolyte for demonstration
>>purposes?
> 
>That is a stupid question. A very stupid question, but as it happens, I
>answered it in the first message. A static calorimeter requires calibration
>in advance to determine the heat transfer coefficient (the temperature rise
>for each watt of power). A flow calorimeter also requires calibration of
>course, but because it is a first principle device you can come through the
>door in the middle of the experiment and see that it is working; it is not a
>case where you *must have* the calibration curve in order to judge the 
result.
>Therefore, for the purposes of a public experiment where new observers come
>and go, a flow calorimeter is easier to understand and more convincing.
> 
>This is patently obvious. It is so utterly simple and so easy to understand
>for anyone who is familiar with calorimeters, that only a complete fool like
>Dick Blue would wonder about it. The fact that he did not instantly
>understand it when I explained the first time proves that he does not have
>the foggiest idea what we are talking about here, and he does not understand
>the fundamentals of calorimetry, or thermodynamics, or grade schools physics
>for that matter.
> 
>- Jed

Wrong again, Jed. It's an excellent question! 

Can't you bring yourself to understand that the more variations on the theme, 
the stronger the case for the Patterson cell.  Whether you intend to or not, 
you give the impression that results are an artifact of one specific 
measurement protocol and are so tenuous that they will not standup to any 
variations. You really know how to build confidence in the things you 
advocate.

If you really believe that this is the license to print money that you claim, 
then you should be falling all over yourself to satisfy any and all queries. 
As it stands, it looks like the only money to be made is in selling demo 
units.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: new moderated fusion list
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 22:08:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schroeppel <rcs@cs.arizona.edu> writes:
 
>I am creating a moderated fusion mailing list.
>I expect it to be a light-traffic list.
>The format will be approximately a once/weekday digest.
>The Topic will be fusion, both hot & cold.
 
There is one already for CF and ultrasound gadgets. It is called Vortex-L.
I suppose another can't hurt. I don't know of one for hot fusion, but I
think it might make more sense for them to have a dedicated list, because
HF does not appear to have much to do with CF.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 01:08:39 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <3080ABAB.63A3BDF1@torinet.com>,
   Torin Walker <torin@torinet.com> wrote:
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
>> I doubt very much that you are capable of building one of these devices.
>> It takes a person who "skilled in the art" - in patent terminology. Have
>> you worked extensively with thin film electrolytic deposition? In any case,
>> the patents are:
>> 
>> 4,943,355 7/1990 Patterson
>> 5,036,031 7/1991 Patterson
>> 5,318,675 6/1994 Patterson
>> 
>> - Jed
>
>Thanks for the info. 
>
>As a matter of fact, smartass, I HAVE worked with it, and am quite
>capable of building quite a number of things. I have myriad Phd
>friends who have access to almost anything I need. That which I can't
>get done for free (or cost), I pay for. No big deal.
>
>Why would you doubt I am capable of such a task? You know *NOTHING*
>about me. You should be careful; one of these days, your presumptuous
>attitude may get you into trouble.
>
>Why can't you just answer questions without all the snyde remarks? Do
>you honestly believe the ENTIRE world is against you? (Never mind...
>that was a rhetorical question.)
>
>
>Torin...

Here's the real patent reference:

System for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte
Patent Number: 5,372,688
December 13, 1994

Good luck, but be forewarned: Like the Emperor's new clothes, you have to be 
"worthy" to actually see it.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 22:16:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Wrong again, Jed. It's an excellent question! 
>
>Can't you bring yourself to understand that the more variations on the theme, 
>the stronger the case for the Patterson cell.  Whether you intend to or not, 
 
Nope, it was stupid question. You have missed the point; you did not read
Richard's question. We are not debating whether it is a good idea to use
different types of calorimeter; everyone agrees on that. Richard's question
was: Why didn't CETI and U. Ill. show up with a static calorimeter instead
of a flow calorimeter. It was stupid because I already gave him the answer
and also because anyone knows that a flow calorimeter is easier to
understand when you come in midway through the experiment.
 
I guarantee you -- I *promise* you -- that if CETI had brought a static
calorimeter Richard would now be telling us that's no good, it should have been
a flow calorimeter. Instead of giving us this imaginary hand-waving crap
about why flow calorimeters don't work, he would be busy some other crap
about why static calorimeters don't work. Richard is a contrarian; an idiot
debunker. All he is good for is handwaving and making up absurd physics on
the spur of the moment to disprove whatever he doesn't like. His objections
are pure, 100%, unadulterated hogwash without any adulteration of real-world
physics per se. It is all imaginary bunk.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 22:21:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>the stronger the case for the Patterson cell.  Whether you intend to or not, 
>you give the impression that results are an artifact of one specific 
>measurement protocol and are so tenuous that they will not standup to any 
>variations. You really know how to build confidence in the things you 
 
Obviously you did not read Richard's messages or mine either. This exchange
started when I pointed out to him that they have used both types of
calorimeter. Richard is merely insisting that they should have brought in
the other type to the conference. He doesn't mean it and he does not know
what he is talking about. If I said they have type X and Y and they brought
X, he would insist that only Y will do. He does not need a reason and he
clearly does not have the foggiest what X and Y are in this case, or how
they work, or what the advantages or disadvantes are. If you read the first
message in this thread you see that he is wandering around in an impossible
fantasy world where anything can be true. As the Germans would say, he is
lost in cloud cuockoo land.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:38:47 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1510951841520001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

a long description of how to calculate the pressure needed which I have skipped.

An even simpler view would be to realize pressure which has units of force
per unit area is equivalent to force times distance or energy per unit
volume. So with 5 watts  and 14 ml/sec I can compute 5/14 joules/ml which
directly equates to a pressure. Assuming the other numbers posted are
correct, this should be equivalent to 206 atmospheres.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:06:36 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-1510951937360001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-1310952103020001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
>> channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
>> saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
>> solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
>> before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
>> more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
>
>***{It's just simple algebra, Bill. Assume a particle is intruding into
>the cavitation channel with velocity V. If there is only one electron in
>the orbit and the period of the orbit is T, then on the average the
>particle will have a time interval T/2 to travel into the channel before
>the electron comes around and knocks it out again. Thus the distance
>traveled into the channel will be VT/2. Now, clearly, as the orbital
>frequency increases, VT/2 decreases. What could be simpler, or more
>unarguable, than that? --Mitchell Jones}***

You make a point the effective penetration of a particle into a cavitation
channel decreases with increasing orbital frequency. I agree this is true
but ask so what? What is important is not the average distance traveled by
the "etheron" but the rate of "etheron" electron interactions and the
amount and direction of energy/momentum exchange. To pursue a classical
explaination I would expect the rate to be dependent on the channel
volume, "etheron" density, electron orbital speed and average drift
velocity of the "etherons". As far as energy/momentum exchange it will
clearly depend on the mass difference and nature of the forces which
govern electron "etheron" interactions.

Since you haven't said a whole lot about the properties of "etherons" I am
sure you or I can work out what the properties have to be in order to make
it unlikely to have observed the "etheron" or decay of the hydrogen atom.

This process is too much of an "ad hoc" theory for my taste. It may be a
more accurate description of "reality" than QM but I don't find it any
more satisfying than QM as a description of the observed data.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.16 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:26:32 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <J-KFgkZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>One of the strange responses by Jed Rothwell to questions concerning this
>>device is that the effect has also been observed in a static calorimeter
>>without the flowing electrolyte.  Could you fill us in on the details
>>regarding that experiment, Jed?  If it is so easy to duplicate this
>>effect in a simple static calorimeter why would anyone bother with the
>>complexity of the set-up with the flowing electrolyte for demonstration
>>purposes?
> 
>That is a stupid question. A very stupid question, but as it happens, I
>answered it in the first message. A static calorimeter requires calibration
>in advance to determine the heat transfer coefficient (the temperature rise
>for each watt of power). A flow calorimeter also requires calibration of
>course, but because it is a first principle device you can come through the
>door in the middle of the experiment and see that it is working; it is not a
>case where you *must have* the calibration curve in order to judge the result.
>Therefore, for the purposes of a public experiment where new observers come
>and go, a flow calorimeter is easier to understand and more convincing.
> 
>This is patently obvious. It is so utterly simple and so easy to understand
>for anyone who is familiar with calorimeters, that only a complete fool like
>Dick Blue would wonder about it. The fact that he did not instantly
>understand it when I explained the first time proves that he does not have
>the foggiest idea what we are talking about here, and he does not understand
>the fundamentals of calorimetry, or thermodynamics, or grade schools physics
>for that matter.

I am not convinced your characterization of the question as "stupid" is
warranted. However, leaving that issue aside what you have done is address
the least important question in Dick's post.

As I see it, a much more important questions Dick raised are why can't the
SOFE result/demostration be explained in terms of known chemistry? Is
there any evidence of fusion other than heat? What is the assumed fusion
reaction given the description of this device as working with "light
water"?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 18 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
