1996.01.01 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 1 Jan 1996 18:18:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Ahem.  A magnetically coupled aquarium pump?  Sure, its capable of a 
: significant flow rate in the absence of any head.  Given a bit of head,
: its performance is FAR LESS.  How much FAR LESS remains to be determined.

Ahem, all electrical motors are "magnetically" coupled. (Well, there are
electrostatic motors, but those are not generally commerically useful.)

--
 - 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:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 1996 12:59 -0500 (EST)

srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) writes:
 
-> Aha, my point exactly - if it doesn't work well enough to make electricity,
-> it is not a practical power source.
 
That is crazy.  At my house I pay about $120 a month to heat it (and that was
over $300 a month before switching to gas), and about $40 a month to heat our
water. The remainder of the electricity for the lights and computer and TV
probably run about $30 to $40 a month. I would love to heat my house and water
with CF and save $140 a month. The amount I would pay TVA for the other stuff
that requires high grade energy is trivial compared to what requires plain old
low grade heat.  I would take heat for free any day over electricity that cost
only half as much.  The amount I would save would be much more.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REAL proof of of CF ?
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 1996 13:05 -0500 (EST)

srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) writes:
 
-> In article <4bmq83$krf@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
-> >In article <4bkg0m$7fu@pollux.usc.edu>, srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven
-> >Robiner) writes:
-> >>Wrong.  My computer is no more run by heat than your brain is run by
-> >>photosynthesis.  Then again, maybe there's something to your theory...
-> >>
-> >>=Steven=
-> >>
-> >You do eat food to nourish your body (brain) do you not?  Where do you
-> >think
-> >that food comes from?  Try this: Sun  (heat)-->photosynthesis-->plants-
-> >-->animals eat-->your food.  So you do run on heat. If you can't see
-> >that you are beyond hope.
-> >
-> >Regards, Vince
->
-> You are beyond hope.  The concept of reduction to absurdity gets you
-> nowhere.  I was talking about a practical power delivery system anyway.
 
I am afraid you really do have a clue.  ALL electricity is produced from heat,
period.  It matters not what the source of the heat is, the only condition is
that it be sufficiently above the environment to allow reasonable effeciency in
conversion to electricity.
 
Coal fired plants burn coal for the heat.  Nuclear plants "burn" uranium for
the fuel.  Hydroelectric plants run on the heat from the fusion in the sun
using a water cycle.  Gas fired plants run on the heat produced from gas.  Your
car engine runs on the heat produced from burning gasoline.  The
geothermal plants run on the heat from hot springs or pumped water. There are
NO significant sources of electricity that do not run on heat.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Jerry Irvine /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: jjirvine@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.envir
nment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 11:10:32 -0800
Organization: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <21cenlogic-3012951301160001@austin-2-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2912952150400001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> > In article <4bsab2$lqs@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, tcox@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> ***{I would add that if we work with a *reasonably* defined "entropy"
> concept, there is also no contradiction between the first and second law.
> The first law implies that the universe always existed and, granting that,
> the second law implies that the universe is infinite in space. If it were
> not--if the universe were a finite cloud of matter and energy at the

Current observations indicate this to be the case.

> center of an infinite void--then by the second law energy would have been
> flowing outward from that center for an infinite time, as Anthony Cox
> noted, and the universe would have run down by now. The point: Anthony

Unless time is non-linear and we simply cannot perceive that from our
frame of reference.

> Cox's argument assumes a universe that is finite in space. My point is
> that both the first and the second law can be true, but only if the
> universe is infinite in both space and time. My personal belief goes much

Or one or both space and time are non-linear, perhaps time at point
singularity, for example.

> further than that: I believe that the universe is infinite in space, time,
> and scale, with no smallest particles, largest structures, or fastest
> motions. --Mitchell Jones}***
>  

Either too simple to be real or too real to believe :).

Just Jerry (corporial lifeform on an insignificant spec of dust in finite
space.)

-- 
Jerry Irvine - jjirvine@aol.com, jjirvine@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA         ^^^^^^^^
Opinion, the whole thing.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjjirvine cudfnJerry cudlnIrvine cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Landon Sealey /  message
     
Originally-From: Landon_Sealey@mindlink.bc.ca (Landon Sealey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: message
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 12:52:43 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Hello. My name is Landon. I am who you would like to become if you
could know who I am. But you cannot. You can, however, write to me,
and choose to begin the adventure that you are already living.

Landon_Sealey@mindlink.bc.ca

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenLandon_Sealey cudfnLandon cudlnSealey cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / James Stolin /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 1 Jan 1996 21:10:15 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

   I'd suggest CETI simplify things on their demonstration setup. Rather 
than have stopcocks in the "plumbing", just move the return hose from the 
reservoir to a graduated cylinder then return it.  No questions about 
different flow paths, restrictions, head, etc. 

   Folks, rather that piss away your time arguing about things like this, 
come up with solutions or suggestions for improvement.  Nuff said ... 
back to lurking for another year.
 
-
Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin@prodigy.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin - PWP/HTML and more

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Jon Zalk /  plutonium?
     
Originally-From: Jon.Zalk@ix.netcom.com (Jon Zalk )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plutonium?
Date: 1 Jan 1996 20:59:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom

What use's plutonium these day's? I know we use uranium 238 in power 
plant's but do we also use plutonium.....?


	and...Does anyone out there besides me bleave the therareticly 
that time does not exist? because and I am saying this the present is 
now the future which is now in the past wich put's me in the present 
then the future and so on...you see as I speek time doen't exist because
when you think about it there is no present time?

or do you Bleave in the fact that you cant get from point A to point Y?
because evey step you take leves you with 1/2 to go then when you step 
again you have 1/2 to go thus..on half after half..like there are 
infanint half's!!

	                   BRAIN BUSTER!!!

	How many time's in one seckond can you travel around the earth 
if you are going at the speed of light?
HINT: the Speed of light is 186,282.3935
HINT: the Curmfrance of the Earth is 25,000

post your answer's coment's here X


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenZalk cudfnJon cudlnZalk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Jon Zalk /  Re: plutonium?
     
Originally-From: Jon.Zalk@ix.netcom.com (Jon Zalk )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plutonium?
Date: 1 Jan 1996 21:01:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <4c9hvb$bas@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> Jon.Zalk@ix.netcom.com (Jon Zalk ) 
writes: 

>
>What use's plutonium these day's? I know we use uranium 238 in power 
>plant's but do we also use plutonium.....?
>
>
>	and...Does anyone out there besides me bleave the therareticly 
>that time does not exist? because and I am saying this the present is 
>now the future which is now in the past wich put's me in the present 
>then the future and so on...you see as I speek time doen't exist 
because
>when you think about it there is no present time?
>
>or do you Bleave in the fact that you cant get from point A to point Y?
>because evey step you take leves you with 1/2 to go then when you step 
>again you have 1/2 to go thus..on half after half..like there are 
>infanint half's!!
>
>	                   BRAIN BUSTER!!!
>
>	How many time's in one seckond can you travel around the earth 
>if you are going at the speed of light?
>HINT: the Speed of light is 186,282.3935 per seckond.
>HINT: the Curmfrance of the Earth is 25,000
>
>post your answer's coment's here X
>
>
>


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenZalk cudfnJon cudlnZalk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 1 Jan 1996 23:19:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

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

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

# Written/Edited by:

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

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


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

* 1) Contents

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


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

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


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

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


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

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


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

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


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

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

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

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

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

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

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

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

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

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


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

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

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

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

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


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

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

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


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

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

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


* 5) Mail Server

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

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

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


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

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

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

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


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

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

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

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

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


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

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

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


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Belgium
-------

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

Canada
------

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

Finland
-------

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

France
------

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

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

Korea
-----

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

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

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

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

Sweden
------

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

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

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

Taiwan
------

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

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

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

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

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



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experimental evidence rules out 1300 watts from CETI demo
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 23:41:44 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <shanahan.21.002101DE@groupz.net>,
   shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan) wrote:

[. . .]

->I believe Jed Rithwell claims to have mesured temps many times in several 
->different runs...  Personally, I vote for a flow rate problem instead...
->
->----
->Kirk Shanahan                    Happy Holidays!

Jed has been known to get the facts confused at times -- even (or 
especially) when he outwardly seems very confident.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.01 / Bill Nelson /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: billn@PEAK.ORG (Bill Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: 1 Jan 1996 23:54:17 GMT
Organization: CS Outreach Services, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Anthony Cox (arteast@pop3.cris.com) wrote:
: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) wrote:

: >Does anyone have a journal reference for this alleged perpetual motion
: >machine that is mentioned in this thread?

: No, but nobody likes me mentioning my 13 SEER heat pump which has a
: thermal efficiency of well over 200% in winter and over 300% in summer.

Why wouldn't they like it? It is immaterial to the discussion. There is
a large difference between heat transfer efficiency (whichis what your
SEER rating is) and energy efficiency.

If you add up the energy absorbed from the ground/air by the heat coila
and the electrical energy used by the heat pump itself - then compare it
to the heat output from the radiator - you will find that the energy
transfer is far below 100%.

If that were not the case, then you could place the radiator coils in
the ground along with the absorbing coils, and have a perpetual motion
machine.

Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbilln cudfnBill cudlnNelson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / Harry Conover /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 2 Jan 1996 00:25:40 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: : Ahem.  A magnetically coupled aquarium pump?  Sure, its capable of a 
: : significant flow rate in the absence of any head.  Given a bit of head,
: : its performance is FAR LESS.  How much FAR LESS remains to be determined.

: Ahem, all electrical motors are "magnetically" coupled. (Well, there are
: electrostatic motors, but those are not generally commerically useful.)

No, electric motors are magnetically driven, not magnetically coupled.
In most circumstances this slight difference in wording would make no
material difference -- In this case it does.

Magnetically coupled aquarium pumps employ a motor to rotate a ceramic
magnet external to the fluid container and pump impeller housing.  Another
ceramic magnet is attached to the pump impeller inside the fluid container,
and rotates under the influence of the external spinning magnet.

While this configuration works well in situations where only limited amounts
of pumping power are required and significant energy losses can be tolerated,
performance limitations generally constrain this coupling design to 
applications having lose flow requirements and needing very little
head. 

The problem with this type of pump, and why it would not normally be
selected for an application like this, has to do with the losses and
slip that will occur at the magnetic coupling.  Unlike the magnetic
field within the motor where the flux path is largely through
high-permeability ferromagnetic materials except for a small air-grap,
the flux path of the manetic coupling is (except for the ceramic
magnets themselves) entirely through air, plastic, and water.  As
a result, magnetic flux density at the pump impeller is quite
low, and so the motor is unable to deliver much torque.  With low
head, little torque is required to produce significant flow and
the configuration works quite well.  

With any significant head resistance, the magnetic flux is inadequate
to maintain the impeller in synchronization with the motor shaft
and the coupling begins to slip.  As a result, the pumping 
characteristics of this configuration are more in line with those
of a constant pressure device rather than a unit providing consant 
flow.

As any change in head will result in a dramatic change in
flow, the magnetically coupled aquarium pump represents a 
worst case equipment selection for this application - Unless, of 
course, the designer's goal was a covert attenuation of fluid
flow by the subtle manipulation of head resistance.

                                       Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.envir
nment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: 2 Jan 1996 02:01:27 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <21cenlogic-2912952150400001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
=In article <4bsab2$lqs@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, tcox@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
=
=> In <4bs6rg$su@uwm.edu>, jbm@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Joe Marlin) writes:
=> >   Hard sciences, like physics, chemistry, etc. are built up on axioms
=> >which can be demonstraded to be true.  You make a hypothesis, you test it,
=> >if it passes the test it becomes an axiom.  If you cannot test it, it is not
=> >hard science.
=> 
=> Not quite, axioms are self evident truths and do not have to be tested.
=> Axioms cannot be proven one way or another by any tests,
=> and have to be assumed as self evident.  They form the basis for hard
=> science.  The laws of thermodynamics are considered axioms since
=> it is not possible to prove or disprove them.   You cannot prove that
=> energy cannot be created by any experiment, you can only say that
=> we have never observed the creation of energy, that makes it an authoritive
=> law of science, not hard facts.
=
=***{Is reductio ad absurdum a form of proof? If it is, then it is possible
=to prove the first law. The principle of continuity holds that no entity
=may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing and, as a
=usually unstated corollary, it holds that all attributes are carried by
=entities. These ideas are proven by reductio ad absurdum: if we assume
=that they are false, knowledge itself becomes impossible.  If properties
=need not be carried by entities, then we have no basis for belief in the
=existence of any entities, including those that comprise the external
=world or ourselves. And if entities can leap into existence out of
=nothing, then we have no basis for believing that our sensations have
=sources

How do you get from your conclusion from your premises?  As best I can tell,
your conclusion does NOT follow.  Furthermore, the entire basis of your
argument is "if we can't understand something, then that thing can't exist."
Suppose you tell use how you justify that premise?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / Landon Sealey /  cmsg cancel <82050-820529563@mindlink.bc.ca>
     
Originally-From: Landon_Sealey@mindlink.bc.ca (Landon Sealey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <82050-820529563@mindlink.bc.ca>
Date: 2 Jan 1996 04:40:08 GMT

EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by jem@xpat.postech.ac.kr.

See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19960102.01 for further details
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenLandon_Sealey cudfnLandon cudlnSealey cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI Cell Configuration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI Cell Configuration
Date: 2 Jan 1996 05:25:06 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: exactly what is the CLOSED LOOP flow rate.  This parameter apppears to be
: a bit of a mystery.

We can compute the possibilities given the other observations.

Note that the measured electrical input power was 1.4W (.18A * 8V.)
The measured flow rate was 1200 cc/minute.

If we assume a delta T of 16 degrees C and a specific heat of 0.95,
then these are the power inputs required to heat the corresponding
flow rates those 16C.

cc/minute   watts
---------  --------
  1200     1265       These values assume a:  delta T of 16C.
  1000     1054                               specific heat of 0.95
   500      527 
   100      105
    50       52       Formula used:  P = flow/60 * 4.1629 * dT * 0.95
    10       10
     5        5.3
     4        4.2
     3        3.2
     2        2.1
     1        1.05

The actual flow rate needed with a 1.4W input to heat to 16C delta T
would have to be on the order of 1-2 cc per minute.  This would be
pretty nearly a 1000:1 reduction in flow rate over what was measured.

The 0.18A current would produce noticeable O2 and H2 (my 0.04A current
test produced noticeable O2 and H2 and stirred the cell well.)  These
bubbles would be seen in the flow and the linear transversal rate
through the clear plastic hose would be noticably different for 2cc
per minute than for 1200cc/min.

--
 - 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:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / ken collins /  Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
     
Originally-From: ken collins <collinsk@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.envir
nment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second "law" is dead ! Success !
Date: 2 Jan 1996 09:42:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>In article <21cenlogic-2912952150400001@austin-1-12.i-link.net>,
>21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>
>> In article <4bsab2$lqs@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, tcox@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
>> 
>[snip]
>> > 
>> > We still have the contradiction between the law of conservation of mass and
>> > energy and the law of entropy.  If mass and energy cannot be created, then
>> > it follows that they have been in existance forever.  Given an
>infinite amount
>> > of time, the universe must have completely run down by now.  Guess what,
>> > it hasn't.
>> 
>> ***{This is only a problem if we interpret the 2nd law in a way that
>> contradicts the 1st law. It we treat it not as a statement that
>> "microscopic disorder" (i.e., "entropy") increases with the passage of
>> time, but as a statement that heat only flows from regions of higher
>> temperature to regions of lower temperature, the problem vanishes. A 2nd
>> law conceived in this way says nothing about the universe as a whole,
>> either that it will ultimately "run down" or that it will not. 
>
>***{I would add that if we work with a *reasonably* defined "entropy"
>concept, there is also no contradiction between the first and second law.
>The first law implies that the universe always existed and, granting that,
>the second law implies that the universe is infinite in space. If it were
>not--if the universe were a finite cloud of matter and energy at the
>center of an infinite void--then by the second law energy would have been
>flowing outward from that center for an infinite time, as Anthony Cox
>noted, and the universe would have run down by now. [...]
> 
>>--Mitchell Jones}***

(My apologies to those whose inputs are not adequately referenced above. kpc)

Mr, Jones, your statement, "the universe would have run down by now" is not 
necessarily correct because, if "energy" flows so as to expand "space", then, since 
that flow would possess inertia, it would be carried on beyond an inversion "point", 
diminish, "halt", and then reverse to flow into the "void" that was produced during 
the post-inversion"point" flow.

In this view, the Universe as a whole would be in a harmonic "state", and what's 
described by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would have 2 phases: expansion-dominant 
and contraction-dominant. (In the 2nd of these, it would be "impossible" to 
construct any machine which didn't produce more "energy" than it consumed. 
(contractile-universe PPM). ken

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollinsk cudfnken cudlncollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 / David Naugler /  Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT
     
Originally-From: David Naugler <dnaugler@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Day at MIT
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 02:02:33 -0800
Organization: IMBB

Craig Haynie wrote:
> 
> Oops!


Could you explain "Oops"?
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudendnaugler cudfnDavid cudlnNaugler cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Diverting hose makes a mess
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Diverting hose makes a mess
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 10:40:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) writes:
 
   "I'd suggest CETI simplify things on their demonstration setup. Rather
   than have stopcocks in the 'plumbing', just move the return hose from the
   reservoir to a graduated cylinder then return it.  No questions about
   different flow paths, restrictions, head, etc."
 
We did that too. At a flow rate of a liter per minute, it is too messy.
The water gets everywhere by the time you plug the hose back into the
reservior, through the loose fitting at the top. That is how they dumped the
water back into bottles before moving the display.
 
There is enough lithium in the water to make it a moderate health hazard. You
would not want to drink the stuff, and you want to avoid spilling it too
much.
 
 
In any case, all this stuff about different flow paths is a load of bull.
Simple, direct observations prove it is all nonsense. The flow rate does *not*
drop from one liter to one milliliter just because the water goes through an
extra two feet of hose. You can see and hear that it is still flowing at the
normal rate. When the pump alone is run, adding ~25 watts to the system, the
water in the reservoir does not get measurably warm. Finally, when you draw
a sample of water the cell temperature does not suddenly drop, which is what
it would have to do if the heat was caused by a blocked hose. The Delta T
does not drop or change at all.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan  3 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
